ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD, Speedy & prod, NPP & AfC, COI & paid editors,    BLP,            Bilateral relations
Notability,   Universities & academic people, Schools, Academic journals, Books & other publications
Sourcing,    Fiction,       In Popular Culture    Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

notability of funding organization

(from a tp discussion elsewhere) The importance and notability of a research organization does derive from the notability of its researchers. (NOTINHERITED works the other way round--the people aren't notable because a notable organization funds them, as it funds non-notable people also) Even if it just funds them, its purpose or existence is to select whom it gives money to. Of course, if for an organization we could find a good 3rd party source saying that they have done that well, we could use it--that would be the ideal source. But I'd still list the ones who have been determined to be notable here for WP purposes & have articles, on the same basis as we list alumni for a college. But absolutely I agree we wouldn't include their bios in the article;whenever Icomeacross an organization doing that (as many try to do for thieir board of directors, etc.), I always remove it. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

inputs

Hi DGG . Greetings. I respect your time and efforts in reviewing and providing inputs. It is never my intention to write promotional or source unreliable information. While contributing in Wikipedia, I strictly adhere to Wikipedia policies. I thank you for your valuable suggestion and feedback given and take this seriously while editing anything in future. Also for Power Grid Of India article, where you gave one of your observations, I noticed I didn't edit in that article subsequently of getting remarks from other administrator and followed it later on as a learning. I commit that learning is an evolutionary process in Wikipedia. My regrets for any issue that must have happened unknowingly. Would be always looking forward for guidance. Gardenkur (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Gardenkur, the basic thing I insist on for anyone who asks for advice is that they take the advice I give-if they don't, why should I bother? That's the way to show your good faith. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG#inputs

Hi DGG. Thanks for reply. I really appreciate and thank you for the inputs and will make extra effort and caution to follow them. Thanks again for your positive feedback. Gardenkur (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jonathan Charteris-Black & Draft:Ramesh Chandra Ray

Hello, David,

Just a reminder that when you restore an expired draft, you need to make an edit to the page or it shows up as expired and ready to be deleted. Since there has been no changes to the page's edit history in over six months, it looks like it was an expired draft that was simply missed. I double-check unusual drafts but not all of our page taggers ask a lot of questions. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know; that problem happened when I needed to take a break to deal with. some rain. But I seem to be almost the only person rescuing, or rescuing enough. . Its discouraging, looking at 100 for 1 that I can save. but it ads up to about 1000 lost articles a yea on subject like notable authors, of which maybe 250 are important. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name-dropping.

"The name of the official who appointed him to a post is considered name-dropping." what does this mean? Should I mention the official who appointed him or vice versa? i appreciate you if you help me get this article accepted after review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abdullah_Bin_Sulaiman_Al_Rajhi

No, you do NOT mention the name of the official who appointed him. Only he and the other bureaucrats in the office care. The general public wants to know only what position he was appointed to and what year. DGG ( talk ) 04

43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And this is what I did because I did not mention any name of the official And if you find any official name, mention it to me I will appreciate

Dignity Taking

I've been staring at this for a while, trying to work out whether it is inherently notable or whether it is one or more academics trying to establish a reputation. I'd appreciate your taking a look. I am 51:49 against it at present, but feel bamboozled by the welter of references. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent almost took it for parody. I don't think the concept of pseudoscience applies in the social sciences (except physiological psychology), because there is no stable standard. But this is pseudo-academic., a pretense of scholarship,. It's a real but unnecessary word. The concept is known in ordinary language as "shaming", overlapping with "persecution" , "repression" and "conquest." Even within the social sciences, there's a relatively well accepted "depersonalization" The difference is that most of these terms apply also between people, as distinct from the state or state-supported agents towards people. Almost anything a state or a group acting as a state can do or permit in a hostile way towards individuals would fall within its compass , so there's potential for an essentially infinite number of academic articles. . The list of example is oversimplified and immature to the point that it needs rewriting, by which I mean reducing to a list with links to our articles.

I at first thought the article would be an example of right-wing bias, as conservative academics use "taking" to mean taking property for public use, taxation, and regulation.(I picked these 3 terms because they are specifically listed as permitted in the US Constitution). It turns out to be the opposite , fashionably academic left-wing. The first example is Israeli dispossession of the Bedouins; it omits what most people would think the most obvious in recent times, the Nazi destruction of Jewish people and property and dignity. It omits the Nazi destruction of the Roma. It includes the repression of Poles by the Soviets, omitting the repression by the Soviets (and Czars) of the Jews --and many other people. and the Poles.It gives something relatively minor from the PRC, but omits their treatment of the Uighurs and Tibetans . . It omits any number of notorious historical examples, including the most obvious: the Crusades, and the expulsions of the Jews and Muslims from Spain, Portugal, and other Christian countries.

The references only look impressive. They are almost all derived from two special issues of periodicals, presumably sponsored by the proponent(s) of the use of this term. Almost nothing from these publications is cited in google Scholar. And, though the sponsors obtained papers form a number of notable and almost notable people, the papers they contributed to these special issues are among the least cited of their career, generally by several orders of magnitude. I think most academics would recognize this as implying that the sponsors asked their acquaintances, many of whom contributed something out of friendship, but something trivial.

I'm copying this to the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I wonder if you would care to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Paraphrasing of copyrighted material#Tags. The article summarizes results of a search for information, with mostly mundane conclusions. Levivich seems convinced it is riddled with errors, opinion and original research and has littered it with tags saying so. I am sure it could be improved, but do not think the tags are helpful. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

made a general comment only. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Ciancio

Hi we have edited this page significantly. There are statements of facts with citations to peer-reviewed medical journals. Please let me know what content sounds like advertising so I can edit further. Medkatz (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Lokayukta

Hi DGG. Thank you for taking interest in this article and flagging off your concerns. If the concern of copyright or wikipedia mirror is related to the earlier draft, just wanted to let you know, it was corrected promptly before being approved for main space. Here is the link to the current version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam_Lokayukta. Also Lokayukta is common institution with varying powers in different parts of India. In case you feel there is still some concern with the current article, requesting you to help point out any specific parts that you feel may have copyright conflicts. I try to ensure every article created by me is compliant with Wiki policies. I hope to receive your inputs and help me contributing effectively to Wikipedia. Thanks in advance Gardenkur (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenkur, this is an interesting subject and will need further discussion. I admit my prior ignorance. I never heard of it until I saw it on Wikipedia, like so many things about so many countries,. My first understanding was very weak, and improved as I saw the other articles. But I was still not able to understand it as well as I would like, either for my own personal knowledge, or in order to figure out how the topic should be handled in Wikipedia, without reading some of the underlying documents. Perhaps you could try to simplify the articles a little, and then we can discuss them. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC) .[reply]

Hi DGG. Thanks for responding to my concern. If you feel that copyright concern had been resolved in this article, can you please help me removing the template relating to the same. As regards your other comments and suggestions in this article, wanted to clarify on those 1. on the article appearence being like press release or news article, will continue improving as per wiki standards and will notify you once done. 2. Will also clean up to meet Wikipedia quality standards. A lokayukta is a selected member for each state for the role of Parliamentary Ombudsman and an Upa-Lokayukta is a deputy to him filling the former's role in his absence. As suggested by you, I am planning to make Lokayukta as an Umbrella article to link many of the common features. It needs some time and efforts. However, India being vast country with many states and the role of Lokayukta being diverse in these states, a separate article highlighting those is needed for each state. Thanks again for your valuable suggestion and looking forward for the same in future. Gardenkur (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me read and think first, and then comment further and discuss. . Ping me if I haven't gotten there in a few days, but not until then/ DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vice Ganda on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request re-check Notability

Thank you very much for your help in improving the quality of the article and its publication. Would you please review the notability of Saleh Sokhandan and helping me to resolve any issues? WPooya (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there will be a delay, but i'll get there. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFC

"The name of the official who appointed him to a post is considered name-dropping." and this is what I did because I did not mention any name of the official And if you find any official name, mention it to me I will appreciate you if help me get this article accepted after review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abdullah_Bin_Sulaiman_Al_Rajhi Ihabb88 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

article still has "During the year 2021, King Salman’s approval was issued for Abdullah Sulaiman Al Rajhi to join the Board of Trustees of the Families of Martyrs, Injured, Prisoners and Missing Persons headed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman". One sentence, two unnecessary names of dignitaries. I don't plan on approving i on any case. It's thetypical promotional article writetn when someone gets a new position. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ihabb88 . I approved it, because he got a reasonable about of local coverage 9and It hink his art is interesting). It's a little marginal. What is needed to met WP:CREATIVE Is unambiguous evidence of his at being in the permanent collection of major museums, and if possible some academic studies of his work(which I doubt are available yet). DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean by evidence of being in the permanent collection of major museums? abdullah is chairman of bank ! and there is unambiguous evidence that from the official website of the bank https://www.alrajhibank.com.sa/en/alrajhi-group/about/board-of-directors Ihabb88 (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello, David,

You made a comment on Talk:BDR Thermal which popped up on the Orphaned Talk Page list so it was deleted. There was no associated article. I'm not sure if there is content there that you want to move to a different page.

Hope all is well with you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had already deleted it -- it was one of the wierd sequences that afc sometimes gets me trapped into. . Thanks for noticing!! DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently AfC comment

Politicians has to win state or federal elections. There is no second opinion about it. If this is regarding; Draft:Anubrato Mandol - then I'm sure he is not yet ready for a Wiki page. However, feel free to consult with Fences_and_windows as he had a different opinion about the draft. If he is OK with your draft, then I have no objection because I trust his judgement in these kind of matters. - Hatchens (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. I think the statement that politicians must win elections is a misreading of NPOL. It states that those who are presumed notable include "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" and says "[local or unelected politicians] can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Coverage during one campaign is indeed usually held to fail WP:BLP1E, but we have many bios of unelected politicians and repeat candidates who have received enduring significant coverage. Jyoti Roy, I'll reply further about this draft on my talk page. Fences&Windows 14:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and windows, thank you for bringing in the clarity. I have noted your points which will surely help me in dealing future AfC drafts at the time of reviewing. - Hatchens (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the use of BLP1E for this is in my opinion a perverted use of a very important rule. BLP1E was intended to prevent trivial tabloid-style notability. Doingeven one actually 1notable and important thing is enough. An example we all admit is coming out of nowhere, and winning the elction. The question is whether running in a general election as candidate of a major party for a major office is significant enough. I think it is, though consensus so far usually doesn't agree. My basis is NPOV--that otherwise we are showing political bias by using rules that will almost always favor the incumbent. Eventually I hope we will all realize that NPOV (and V) are more improtant than details of notability rules. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I agree we should cover more candidates. However, the difficulty is in defining "major party" internationally and that many "major party" candidates in FPTP elections are standing with zero hope of being elected. See for example United Kingdom general election records#Lowest share of the vote. Fences&Windows 12:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and windows, I should have added, as I usually do when I say this, that I am talking only about a two party system as in the US, where except for a very few elections in the past it has been clear which are the 2 major parties. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC and AfD

(from an AfD

pass at AfC simply means the reviewer thinks the article would probably pass AfD. it is not and never was intended to be the actual process for deciding on content, but rather just a screen to keep out the imposible and improve the borderline. Considering pass afc to imply will certainly also pass afd would mean that about 90% of drafts in afc would be declined, because very few articles are submitted there that will certainly pass afd --it basically takes a class B article on an unambiguously notable subject in a field where nobody disputes the criteria for notability to be certain of passing AfD, considering its notorious variation. The proof of that is that almost no experienced editor has a 100% record of the articles they !vote keep actually passing, . Even if we interpreted "passing afc", as being certain that it ought to be kept at afd, it still won't be 100%, because experienced editors disagree on many articles--hence the afd process. So far from afc requiring a committee, any new editor can write an article and get it into mainspace if any one reviewer thinks it has a decent change. the committee process is afd, and here it takes its chances with every article written by anyone. Not all afc passes come here, only the questioned ones. I haven't tried to do a query, but I think about 90% of what passes afd does get kept in WP without undergoing afd at all, because most reviewers are properly conservative . (the actual problem is the opposite--some are too conservative and will not pass valid stubs or articles with good references but without correct citation format. It's perfectly right that the community, not a single reviewer, should decide on acceptability as an article. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC) (reply to AfD) ...to underline that, I would have accepted this at AFC because it is, in my view, borderline, and has a better than 50% chance again in my view of surviving a deletion process, but have opined to delete it at AfD because I feel it to be on the wrong side of the border. While this is a paradox, it is not an incorrect set of views. I'm pleased that AFC allows borderline drafts through, and am equally pleased that AfD weeds some out. Community consensus beats the opinion of a reviewer any day. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Laureate Education

Hi DGG, checking in here to ask if there's any other info I can provide as you review my proposed content for Laureate Education? Happy to help in any way I can. Cheers! PMV1111 (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I will get there; I have not forgotten; this is an extremely difficult topic for NPOV, vecause dealing with the commerical and financial aspects only does not tell all the story. you could help by yourself removing all PR sources, DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

may i ask why you deleted my draft?

And please no insults or the statement “not notable” because i have observed that is what editors often do. I believe the topic does meet notability requirements & greatly exceeds those of others who are on wikipedia & you can’t claim i’m the subject cause they have been dead for years. I say this cause in previous accounts when i posted on notable people i got speedy deletion & editors insulting me & claiming i was the subject & the subject was not notable. The state government acknowledges his death, he was a baseball team owner as well as well respected triple board certified doctor who published thousands of scholarly articles in medical journals as well as earning a J.D. and holding a patent for a medical invention that he invented & you feel some youtubers who troll and are on here have more noteworthy lives? Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i read what u said but it makes no sense cause the subject has been dead for years

how is writing about a person who has been dead for years promote a company or product? im going to redo the page & please leave it alone Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

he is long dead but do you think i am from the company who sells the patented product? i am not but if that is the main concern you have i can take that out. After i take that out you cant make same claim that im promoting a company or product by writing on a subject that has been deceased over 7 years Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tonyjohnsonhere my error, restored. (But it is possible for a non-living person's swork to be promoted--families, ,companies, universities, often write promotional material abuot deceased people)

But this article is not so promotional that I should have deleted it. I'll make some suggestions about it later. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Inspire Programme

hey..

i added some information and many reliable sources in this article .. see it thank u

Draft:Warren C. Trenchard

You have removed a whole section (with several subsections) from Draft:Warren C. Trenchard without explanation. Why? Wctrenchard (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

minor and over-personal. We have a rule about autobioggraphies because the subject is not usually the best person to judge what should be included. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello DGG,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi David. You suggested I come back and help out at NPP, and I'm grateful for the trust you still express and your support while I was active. How I miss those discussions in your living room over a glass of good wine and all the good things we got done for Wikipedia. So I take a moment and do the first bit of coordination NPP has seen for nearly a year, only to be met with this totally unmerited comment and ES from Rosguill - an admin no less - a very recent one - whose RfA I wholeheartedly supported and who is nevertheless one of the most prolific reviewers - he even won the 2019 New Page Reviewer of the Year trophy. I may be retired, but I seem to be more in the loop than some people and t's easy for them to heckle from the bleachers. It's time some people realised that Wikipedia is serious stuff and not a ball game. Is it any wonder why I'm totally pissed of with Wikipedia? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it takes time --and perhaps distance -- to have perspective. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I agree that we're in a concerning spot regarding NPP, but I don't think we agree on the nature of the problem. IMO, our most pressing problem is burnout from our contributors, not a surge in UPE. While I appreciate that you're trying to help, I personally find the tone that you often take around NPP problems very demoralizing, which is the opposite of what you're trying to accomplish, and I doubt I'm alone in that perspective. This isn't to say that we shouldn't worry about NPP or can't criticize anything for fear of hurting morale, but the problems NPP faces today are to a point the same problems that all of Wikipedia faces as a project, and I don't think a sky-is-falling attitude helps us deal with them; we've made it through far worse periods in terms of quality control and we'll make it through this one.

As a side note, I sometimes wonder whether as NPP editors we obsess about UPE to a greater degree than we should. Which isn't to say that we should turn a blind eye to it, but when I think about long-term threats to Wikipedia as a project, UPE doesn't even rate. Credibility on controversial topics, editor retention and copyright violations are much bigger problems from what I can see, not because they're more common but because they matter more. Frankly, whether or not we have a UPE article on some up and coming artist no one cares about is nearly irrelevant to Wikipedia's prestige as a knowledge source. We clean up UPE because we don't want people taking advantage of us, but I'm not convinced it's really that big of a threat to the project in itself. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill , To the extent we become a vehicle for advertisements, we're worthless--people might as well go to the Googles. It's not just a question of selectivity--I agree it does not much matter whether we do or do not cover individuals or borderline notability . The problem is that the articles by coi and UPE editors are almost always of very low quality, generally because there isn't much to say that's verifiable and significant, and because the last thing the contributor wants is anything resembling NPOV. They destroy our credibility. I'm here primarily to help new good faith users improve their articles. But I have to do this against a background of editors who are not in good faith--whose purpose is not to improve the encyclopedia but to promote their own cause or endeavors. Many people I know who have left, have left from frustration at needing to do work that others are being paid for. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Hi DGG, Below is a link to an AFC submitted months back for the creation of Oshiotse Andrew Okilagwe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3AAndrew_Oshiotse_Okilagwe?wprov=sfla1

It was declined by Qwerfjkl, the reason given is that the article "includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations".

I sorted for assistance through the "AFC help Desk" and I was directed to you for your kind assistance.

I will be glad if you can help push through the article for publishing. Atibrarian (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atibrarian,

Notability would be by WP:PROF. This requirest he individual to be influential n their profession, as shown by publication or various other ways given there, including being head of a university.

I cannot evaluate the publications. All of his books are published by a publisher which he directs. This could be seen as self-published. The publisher seems to be a general and academic publisher, whose works deal mainly with Nigerian subjects and are, as expected, very rarely held in libraries outside Nigeria. (This can of course represent the poor coverage of Nigeria all but a few US libraries) The books themselves comprise . books for children, ditorship of the encyclopedia he publishes, one book, and several pamphlets . That does not meet WP:PROF

As for being the head of a university, first step is an article on the university. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recommendations DGG. I have created the article for Westland University, Iwo as recommended. Atibrarian (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Inception Institute of Artificial Intelligence

Hi DGG, you recently reviewed the article Draft:Inception Institute of Artificial Intelligence and suggested that it needed more information to merit a Wikipedia page of its own (you recommended possibly adding it to the main page of a university, but IIAI is not actually affiliated with any single university). The article was therefore updated to include significantly more information last month, but has still not been re-reviewed. Would you mind taking another look?

Thanks! Alh123456789 (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-reviewed. You would do better to start first by adding to existing articles, and when you're ready to do new ones, write about people and organizations that are actually notable rather than borderline or below. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to re-review. I appreciate that the IIAI publications previously referenced do not have a very high number of citations, and therefore may not adequately highlight the notability of IIAI. However, most of IIAI's papers were published recently, and their citations need time to accumulate. Moreover, the few papers previously included were just examples of some of IIAI's applied research – they were not their best publications. I have now added twenty more examples of highly-cited papers (several with >200 Google Scholar citations) to the "Publications and Patents" section. I have also removed any language that may have come across as overly promotional. Could you please take another look? Alh123456789 (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it is indeed not a branch of a university, but of a healthcare company, Group 42 (Emirati company). Merge it there. It's already discussed inthe article in a confusing way. It really takes world-famous importance for a research branch of a company to be notable separately, like Microsoft Research. This is not yet in the same league. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request Review the draft:Seyed Ali Jaberi

Hi, Would you please review the draft:Seyed Ali Jaberi? WPooya (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WPooya, I do not handle drafts on musicians DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Do you know a user to do this? WPooya (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFC reviews of academics

Thank you for taking the time to feed back regarding the misapplication of WP:PROF criteria. I greatly appreciate that you took time to express your concerns and I would be happy to receive any further feedback you might have regarding the decisions I have made as an AFC patroller. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Telecommunication Instructional Modeling System page

Dear Editor DGG, I am the developer (since 1988) of the product which is the subject of this new WP page: Telecommunication Instructional Modeling System. As disclosed, I paid an editor to create this page and felt that he did a good job. However, you recently edited the page and removed what you felt were promotional aspects to the page. I read your comments and understand where you are coming from.

Being an academic product developer, it was always my intention for this page to be as NPOV as possible. The reason for this page is to describe the unique methodology which once developed in 1971 by Tim Hooper has stood the test of time and even evolved to meet new educational norms. This evolution is the reason the Variants section was created.

I can also see that the Methodology section could be improved by replacing the image you deleted with a block diagram explaining the methodology (how the mathematical modeling converts concepts to circuitry: the block diagram approach). This product, a mathematical modeling system, is a variant of the original analog computer, used to solve differential equations, pre digital computers. Hence its notability.

The Variants section aims to show how this same methodology can be delivered via simulation (TutorTIMS), via remote access across the internet ( netTIMS & Freewire), in a small form factor (ETT-101) and also translated across domains to Electronics (netCIRCUITlabs). There are many professors around the world who are not aware that this methodology is a possibility and that it can be used successfully (as cited) to deliver optimum laboratory teaching experiences to students. Being of an open architecture, they are also able to recreate this methodology for themselves, should they wish to.

I am writing to suggest that if I have the Variants section replaced and the Methodology section improved by means of new diagram, that you could highlight what needs to be done to achieve a NPOV and better WP page, if neccessary.

Looking forward to achieving an improved outcome for all, Carlo Manfredini Manfred2020 (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my comments at the AfD were:

I removed extensive promotional element such as a duplicative photograph and a detailed list of variants they have for sale (WP is NOT a product catalog). I made the name of the inventor, not the company, more prominent, I replaced the repeated name of the company's device with it . The reason we (or at least I) very much dislike paid editing, is the need to fix the articles. Their articles almost invariably say what the company would like said, which is rarely NPOV. I really dislike doing work asa volunteer for which someone else is being paid. I'm only doing it here as an example--I could just as easily have said Delete for promotionalism, giving a list of the promotional aspects. I keep suggesting paid editors learn how to write WP articles before they have the false self-confidence to ask for money for doing it, but very few have even listened. And I think responsible WPedians should not argue for keeping an unfixed paid article--this would limit the paid content to what comes in already done properly, which would immediately reduce it by 99%

Had I not done this the article would almost certainly have been deleted. The purpose of WP is not to spread awareness of a particular technology: that sort of purpose is exactly what we mean by promotionalism . I am aware of the history of analogue computers. They are not a new concept, neither is the use of block diagrams, and digital simulation of such systems is part of the early history of computers.

As a WP:COI editor, you should not edit the article directly. If you can write a single sentence or two explaining the variants preferably without using their model names, suggest it on the article talk page. I agree that it would be helpful. Remember to make the coi declaration on your user page, and on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Layton Reid

Hi DGG thank you for your input and reviewing my article, could I kindly ask what you mean by need ck of citations. thank you

AFC reviews of academics

Thank you for taking the time to feed back regarding the misapplication of WP:PROF criteria. I greatly appreciate that you took time to express your concerns and I would be happy to receive any further feedback you might have regarding the decisions I have made as an AFC patroller. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edits to Telecommunication Instructional Modeling System page

Dear Editor DGG, I am the developer (since 1988) of the product which is the subject of this new WP page: Telecommunication Instructional Modeling System. As disclosed, I paid an editor to create this page and felt that he did a good job. However, you recently edited the page and removed what you felt were promotional aspects to the page. I read your comments and understand where you are coming from.

Being an academic product developer, it was always my intention for this page to be as NPOV as possible. The reason for this page is to describe the unique methodology which once developed in 1971 by Tim Hooper has stood the test of time and even evolved to meet new educational norms. This evolution is the reason the Variants section was created.

I can also see that the Methodology section could be improved by replacing the image you deleted with a block diagram explaining the methodology (how the mathematical modeling converts concepts to circuitry: the block diagram approach). This product, a mathematical modeling system, is a variant of the original analog computer, used to solve differential equations, pre digital computers. Hence its notability.

The Variants section aims to show how this same methodology can be delivered via simulation (TutorTIMS), via remote access across the internet ( netTIMS & Freewire), in a small form factor (ETT-101) and also translated across domains to Electronics (netCIRCUITlabs). There are many professors around the world who are not aware that this methodology is a possibility and that it can be used successfully (as cited) to deliver optimum laboratory teaching experiences to students. Being of an open architecture, they are also able to recreate this methodology for themselves, should they wish to.

I am writing to suggest that if I have the Variants section replaced and the Methodology section improved by means of new diagram, that you could highlight what needs to be done to achieve a NPOV and better WP page, if neccessary.

Looking forward to achieving an improved outcome for all, Carlo Manfredini Manfred2020 (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my comments at the AfD were:

I removed extensive promotional element such as a duplicative photograph and a detailed list of variants they have for sale (WP is NOT a product catalog). I made the name of the inventor, not the company, more prominent, I replaced the repeated name of the company's device with it . The reason we (or at least I) very much dislike paid editing, is the need to fix the articles. Their articles almost invariably say what the company would like said, which is rarely NPOV. I really dislike doing work asa volunteer for which someone else is being paid. I'm only doing it here as an example--I could just as easily have said Delete for promotionalism, giving a list of the promotional aspects. I keep suggesting paid editors learn how to write WP articles before they have the false self-confidence to ask for money for doing it, but very few have even listened. And I think responsible WPedians should not argue for keeping an unfixed paid article--this would limit the paid content to what comes in already done properly, which would immediately reduce it by 99%

Had I not done this the article would almost certainly have been deleted. The purpose of WP is not to spread awareness of a particular technology: that sort of purpose is exactly what we mean by promotionalism . I am aware of the history of analogue computers. They are not a new concept, neither is the use of block diagrams, and digital simulation of such systems is part of the early history of computers.

As a WP:COI editor, you should not edit the article directly. If you can write a single sentence or two explaining the variants preferably without using their model names, suggest it on the article talk page. I agree that it would be helpful. Remember to make the coi declaration on your user page, and on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

Library design improvements deployed
New collections available in English and German
Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:G. Ulrich Großmann

Why did you move Draft:G. Ulrich Großmann to the mainspace? The only reference, this, no longer works (well, it gives a webpage, but nothing on that webpage is about Großmann, and using their search doesn't help either[1]. Did you actually check this and didn't care, or didn't you check the only reference in a BLP despite another editor (not me) moving it to draft in the first place? Fram (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The books are sufficient to meet WP:PROF. The ISBNs are references to them. And I trust the judgement of deWP for academics-, tho they usually don't fuss about sourcing the routine bio details. what I did forget was to add the translation note. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I worried about notability, I would have AfD'ed it, not sent it to draft. You haven't answered the question. Why did you accept a draft BLP without a single actual reference in the text (worse, with a reference, but one that doesn't contain any info on the subject at all, but which you left there anyway)? Fram (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i made a mistake, probably from working too fast, and I will fix it. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stale drafts, a head's up

Hello, David,

I hope you are having a good weekend. I'm not sure whether you have a system for reviewing expiring drafts on SDZeroBot's lists but in case you do, I wanted to remind you that because there is a March 31st but no September 31st, at the end of the month there will be a deletion of 2 days of unedited drafts on 1 day, not the standard daily 1 page so you might want to squeeze in looking at the March 31st list before the end of the month.

Thanks again for all the work you do for Draft World! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz , thanks for the alert! I had not remembered about this quirk. . DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Fraser

Hello, I would like to retrieve the content Neal Fraser that was recently removed so I can use it for future reference. However, I see that the article was removed because it was not deemed to use notable or independent sources. The article used the same type of sources as Timothy Hollingsworth's page, which has been on Wikipedia for quite some time. I'm not quite sure what makes the article that was created for Neal Fraser different as it is a biography of the chef. I appreciate any guidance you may have on how to improve the content so it will be more acceptable. Halejiana (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)halejiana[reply]

The article was deleted because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. The article on Hollingwood does have some promotional content that needs removal, but the basis for the article is his extremely notable career. There is in addition a considerable different: holligwood has been chef de cuisine at probably the most famous of all contemporary American restaurants. In any case, there are many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them.

More important, Since this is your only contribution, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - this is helpful. I would argue the same is true of the Fraser article in that it describes his notable career including his early life, education and restaurants. He has also worked in quite a few of the most notable restaurants as well. Is there somewhere you would point to make the content more encycolpedic so it complies with Wikipedia standards? I very much appreciate the help. Halejiana (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)halejiana[reply]

Please, respond to the question above. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a connected contributor and I will use the necessary "paid" disclosures. I appreciate you sharing those links with me. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I do not expect that it will be my last contribution as I understand the best practices of contributing to the Wikipedia community through creating additional content and editing articles.

I would advise you to wait until lhe receives a major award or the like. We get many articles on restaurants and chefs. Most are promotion; the others are by fans. even in the most nPOV article in this field there's inherently some promotional effect. It's a dilemma how to handle them, for all restaurants of any pretension get reviews. What happens at AfD in each case decides, and AfD is unpredictable. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I 'm a little reluctant to detailed help to coi editors, unless the article is in my main field of interest, and the subject is so very notable that it would leave a gap in the encyclopedia I will still explain my decisions, and offer general advice, but beyond that, it's up to you to first learn the practices at WP by working as a volunteer on topics of general interest to you. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, DGG,Thank you for telling me that Nagendra and Durgadas (novel) are not promotional articles, and please Ramdarash Mishra was also nominated by Bb123 for removal as a promotional article, but it has not been removed yet, you were right that I am still unable to check others' edits, I am once vandalism, disruptive I can recognize edits, but I haven't tried to check others' edits until today, because I thought it was impossible without special rights, I'm sure the day I'll be able to check others' edits I will go, some manager will definitely give me special rights if needed, can you check my contribution on English Wikipedia, this is my humble request to you.Best Regards Jiggyziz ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 07:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you are not able to check other edits. There's a tab at the top saying View History (or a tab saying More, one of the items under it will be view history). You are possibly using a mobile phone with some partial interface--see WP:Editiing on mobile devices and User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing

But there are several things you need to do when you continue to edit here:

Most important , make absolutely sure nothing of what you use is copied from any previously published source, print or online.

Second, never use adjectives of praise or excellence. Try to use as few adjectives at possible. Write in as plain a style as possible

Make sure you separate fact and opinion, Everything needs a good third party reliable source for every claim--you cannot just say that someone wrote excellent poetry.

Learn how to use references properly. See [[WP:CITEBEGIN]

I hope this helps. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

)

Changes to AfC Draft:Robert K Cunningham

Thanks DGG for your feedback on this, my first AfC submission. I've edited down the number of publications to the top five, per your suggestion. Thanks for your help with this! I hope I am using this talk page correctly-- this is also new to me. :-).

Upitt-panther (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upitt-panther . I accepted it. I will make few changes for style. The most important of them is to highlight the Fellow IEEE in the first sentence, for this alone is enough to prove notability by WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Karan Bajaj draft

Hello, DGG! You've left the comment on the Draft:Karan Bajaj page, mentioning that the draft might be notable with additional sources about the person as an author. May I ask you to detail, please, on what can be done about the draft? For instance, Bajaj authored 4 books and one even was bought for film adaptation (according to the source). Do you think more reviews will help to improve the draft? I'd appreciate your feedback. Best, --Habibiroyal (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Habibiroyal I accepted it, but do not be srprisedif it is nominated for a disccussion at Articles for Deletion. More reviews would help. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]