User talk:DGG/Archive 178 Nov. 2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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


Race is not a phenotype[edit]

That you think that it is leaves me gobsmacked. I suggest you research race a whole lot more before continuing to edit on the subject. jps (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use the lanaguage which is being used in the discussion. The case was named Race and Inteligence.
My own interest in these topics comes from a different area than education and a different geographic region.--I'm interested in the biological markers of population movement in Western Europe and the surrounding regions. Here also the ability to identify specific genes and genetic mutations at a very detailed level has radically revised the discusion: we can now measure what we used to guess. I hope knowledge will decrease prejudice, but that may just be a wish. -- DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "language" in the discussion did not include any reference to "phenotype" until you decided to introduce that. I see this as one of the main problems with race realism. jps (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misread my reply. I was never talking about race in any part of my posting until you brought it up; I then said it was relevant to Ferrango's comments. I've never said I endorsed them. Her interests are different from mine. The interest we share is a desire for WP to accurately describe current scientific thinking. I am like most of us, fully aware of the lack of biological basis for a group termed "Black" or "White'. I repeat once more,
it is impossible that there is any phenotype whatsoever of any living organism which is not subject to genetic selection , and consequently I know that all characteristics will be influenced by genetics. The real questions for any characteristic, for all living beings whatsoever, are to what extent there is a genetic influence, how exactly the influence works in terms of the physiology, and how it interacts with environment--these questions constitute the subject of biology. In the case of humans, or other social animals, this includes the social environment. In the case of humans, distinctively, it also includes the cultural environment, and these aspects constitute the social sciences. The only way it could be otherwise is if evolution does not apply to humans. There are those who do think so, and they are the true fringe.
I now specify, in a probably futile attemp tto avoid misunderstandings, that all of the differrent ways in which the vague term intelligence can be understood, is (or are) a complex phenotypic characteristic. The real interest here is the possibility of dissecting the true biological factors contributing to the various meanigs of the term, that is, the individual genes and the enzymes and structures they code for.
How all of this will interact with populations (or to use the currently fashionable term, geographies) is a further subject for investigation, and a socially and politically much more sensitive one. The discussion of it will not be helped by charges of racism or racialism.

This is my talk page, and the subject is closed here. -- DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Fringe science (October 2021)[edit]

Hello:

The amendment request to Fringe science (permalink) has been declined by the committee and is now archived.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

remarkable surprise. -- DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted a Draft:Theranostics for review[edit]

Respected sir, I submitted a Draft:Theranostics for review, kindly do needful for revision DGG sir. There is already a page and there are some complications. But an independent page for theranostic is really needed. guide me is there any issue to publish this article. Rahulsoman (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will get an indenendent review in due course by whichever reviewer deals with it.-- DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Sir. Kindly do needful. Rahulsoman (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Laureate Education question[edit]

Hi DGG. I have a question for you. The Controversies section is the last bit of content in the current article that I didn't address in the draft you're reviewing. I did propose changes for the subsection on Bill Clinton per your note, but haven't for the other info there. There are some factual inaccuracies and tone issues, and I've come up with alternative content. Should I add that to my draft, or wait until you've finished reviewing? I don't want to throw off your progress. Thanks again for all of your help and feedback! PMV1111 (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to your draft. The section is rather prejudicial (as is related coverage in the Clinton Foundation article)`/fwiw, a ref showing context I just found is [1] -- DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for that source. I think what I added covers the relevant details of Laureate's relationship with Bill Clinton, but I'm happy to add that if you think it'll help after you've reviewed the draft. With regards to the current Controversies content, one sentence reads "In November 2018, Laureate announced that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped charges in Laureate's bribery scandal in Turkey." The source used describes the investigation, and also shows that there were never charges and this was resolved without incident. I'm not sure it really qualifies as a controversy, and it wasn't widely covered. Do you think it is worth keeping in the article? Thanks! PMV1111 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is this perennial confusion between placing charge being a proof of guilt, & of dropping charges being a proof of innocence. (and the even trickier question of making a settlement being proof of anything) We tend not to discuss charge unless they lead somewhere, but that rule is much stronger when its a BLP, not an organization. Reading the reference, it was more than a mere accusation, and the investigation was dropped because the firm resolved the matter internally by firing the person involved and changing the institutions practices. But unless the matter is referred to elsewhere it's not a scandal. If covered, it would belong on the university page, not the Laureate page,--and that page is a very questionable job of pr itself. I wonder about the pages of other affiliates.... DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there[edit]

Hey DGG, I’m not entirely sure if this is a problem for editors who use desktops but for some reason a wrong markup/syntax inserted in your tp is causing your Tp to appear in a strange manner for mobile editors, I tried fixing it now but it didn’t work. Celestina007 (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

try to tell me the problem; then I' try to reproduce it on my phone--- DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)`[reply]
Oh I’m sorry I’m just seeing this, the problem is from a mobile editors point of view, your last message is User talk:DGG#October 2021, so I literally have to click on that and manually scroll down to see your latest/most recent message. It has been that way for a while now. My guess is someone inserted a problematic code or syntax when responding to you, But it appears other than mobile editors not many are seeing this, so it may not be that much of a big deal. Celestina007 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G13 list for 11/8/21[edit]

Hello, DGG,

Occasionally, a well-intentioned editor using AWB will do a mass edit that will affect a large number of pages simultaneously. That happened last May 8th with some drafts that had been moved from the main space to Draft space. They appear in the Notes section of User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon for this day as "draftified". This means that instead of our typical daily number of expiring drafts, which is usually around 200-250 pages, on November 8th, we will have 512! So as not to overwhelm either a draft reviewer like you or a draft page deleter, every day I've been delaying about 20 of these draftified drafts for another six months. So far, most of them involve geographic articles whose accuracy was questioned by Fram. But I think it's better that they be evaluated later, a couple dozen at a time, than to try to review 120+ in one sitting. So, whenever you get around to reviewing this day's list, feel free to skim through the drafts that are listed as draftified as most of them will have been postponed.

It's interesting to me that daily G13 numbers are way up in late April and early May than the typical daily numbers. I'm beginning to think the fluctuation in expiring drafts has less to do with page creators' activity than in page reviewers' activity since it seems like many editors, unfortunately, don't return to work on drafts once they have been declined. Perhaps there was an unofficial AFC backlog drive during these months? Any way, I hope all is well with you! Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one group due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TableSalt342/Archive Many of these are short geographical articles that would be fixable, or even that just need to be checked, and I see that for many of them you postponed deletion. I am not sure that draftifying them was the right course. There's another group accumulated do so some less-than-ideally-competent reviews, discussed sufficiently elsewhere.
Otherwise I do not see any specific pattern.
As you mention , the real problem is that we don't review fast enough to catch the editors while they're still around. But how to dealwith these is a problem which needs rethinking, because theavailable and interested people are not sufficient to do the necessary work.
I am not about to make a formal proposal that other people do more work, but I would have an easier job screening the expiring articles if at least in my own field people clearing the G13s did not delete a discarded draft where there is unmistakable evidence of notability, but unless there are more people than I to work on them, there still remains the job of fixing them. Perhaps the standard should be that if it's a viable stub at 6 months, it should be passed, & (much more difficult to do) if it would be a viable stub if one reference could be found in a quick search, iy should looked for, not deleted without looking. What I'm saying, is perhaps a modified version of BEFORE should apply to G13 deletions. But I know that this is an amount of work which would require much more careful reviewing, and there are far too few reviewers prepared to work properly at this level.
That G13s will be restored is useless if the editors are no longer around. But then, the requests for automatic restoration should have been unnecessary if the editors were around--deleting is what seems to get attention. (This is not the only place in WP where it seems to work. I wish we could devise something more friendly, but I am skeptical it would work as effectively. Warnings no matter how worded do not attract the same immediate attention. )
I am always in danger of falling behind, and any problem in the RW--and there always will be--, or any major distraction in WP--such as the recent Arb request--can cause a crisis. I have it organized so I can catch up for 1 day or sometimes 2 by checking the deleted drafts, but I cannot go beyond this. Even within AfC there is so much more I should be doing--in particular, trying to educate the lower quality reviewers--and figure out how to deal with the ones who insist on doing it wrong -- the only quiet technique I have here is to check their work to at least to catch the most erroneous instances--I normally just fix them. If they question me about it, I explain. Doing thework would be twice as easy if there weren't so many doing it wrong--and if we had more helpful templates. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on another article I accepted Falguni Nayar[edit]

I had accepted it after rejection/commenting (it was again a declared COI). But hearing your thoughts now, I am reconsidering. Please help with your thoughts on it and take necessary action if required. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Nomadicghumakkad Where is the COI declared, please? I would expect to see someone insert {{Connected contributor}} or {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on its talk page to identify the COI editor well. I have chosen to ask the community to decide. I saw this as I was leaving DGG the note below.
You are at liberty to nominate articles for deletion yourself even if you may have accepted them at AFC. We are allowed to have doubts and ask the community. I have done this. Sometimes the discussion showed my acceptance to be good, other times poor. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey FiddleTimtrent, I am not able to locate it but I have a memory of it. I should have been more careful before saying COI Declared. Because from what I am seeing now, the last editor who submitted said they didn't have a COI [2]. I think I have a memory of this being COI declared case because it clearly seemed so. 23:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The creating editor for Karan Tanna[edit]

Looking at their initial editing pattern I recognise it as one normally exhibited by paid editors getting to auto confirmed status. You may disagree. I have left a warning on their talk page against paid editing. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't surprise me. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Quick Laureate Education question[edit]

Hi DGG. I have a question for you. The Controversies section is the last bit of content in the current article that I didn't address in the draft you're reviewing. I did propose changes for the subsection on Bill Clinton per your note, but haven't for the other info there. There are some factual inaccuracies and tone issues, and I've come up with alternative content. Should I add that to my draft, or wait until you've finished reviewing? I don't want to throw off your progress. Thanks again for all of your help and feedback! PMV1111 (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to your draft. The section is rather prejudicial (as is related coverage in the Clinton Foundation article)`/fwiw, a ref showing context I just found is [3] -- DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for that source. I think what I added covers the relevant details of Laureate's relationship with Bill Clinton, but I'm happy to add that if you think it'll help after you've reviewed the draft. With regards to the current Controversies content, one sentence reads "In November 2018, Laureate announced that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped charges in Laureate's bribery scandal in Turkey." The source used describes the investigation, and also shows that there were never charges and this was resolved without incident. I'm not sure it really qualifies as a controversy, and it wasn't widely covered. Do you think it is worth keeping in the article? Thanks! PMV1111 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is this perennial confusion between placing charge being a proof of guilt, & of dropping charges being a proof of innocence. (and the even trickier question of making a settlement being proof of anything) We tend not to discuss charge unless they lead somewhere, but that rule is much stronger when its a BLP, not an organization. Reading the reference, it was more than a mere accusation, and the investigation was dropped because the firm resolved the matter internally by firing the person involved and changing the institutions practices. But unless the matter is referred to elsewhere it's not a scandal. If covered, it would belong on the university page, not the Laureate page,--and that page is a very questionable job of pr itself. I wonder about the pages of other affiliates.... DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment, and have left that out of my draft. I added some updated language for the investigative report from Publica to 2019-2021, my thinking is that if the Turkey content isn't needed and we integrate content about the Clintons into History, then there isn't enough content to justify a standalone Controversies section. I also left out the current Washington Post references in Controversies, since they don't refer specifically to a controversy. Please let me know if you think I should move anything. Thanks so much for all of your effort and time to help me with this. I think this will be a huge improvement for the article. PMV1111 (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PMV1111 There is one major improvement still needed--we talked about it before and didn't agree but I have decided it's essential: The list of institutions, either here or in the separate list, must give dates-- ideally date founded as well as dates of laureate control, and final dispositions of the institution. This is basic information. It's a better way of indicating the size of the company at its peak than any textual description. For those with articles, make sure it matches the information in the article. For those without, it may take a little digging, and I can understand if it can't be done immediately. Even better, it would be good to show the significance of each institution in some manner--maximum enrollment figures for some year under laurate control or the final year of operation. If you work for them, you have access to this; a first party source is sufficient for this material. Myself, I think it's clearer as two articles, but if it's in one, it can easily be split. If it's in two, then the text in the main article just shows the highlights and can be clear. We should also have redirects from every name where we don't have an article, and it's more usual to do that to a list. If you include the information, it would probably fit better in one-column format. It may just be my background, but I think this sort of material is enormously clearer in tabular format than in running text.
We've talked long enough. The last day I can work on this for a while will be Thursday, and I will take whatever you have and adjust it and move it to mainspace, replacing the previous text. DGG ( talk ) 13:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC) �[reply]
This all sounds good, and I understand needing to focus on other work. As you move over whatever you're comfortable with on Thursday, I will work on getting that institution info together. Some of it can come from SEC filings, but I'll see if I can find a comprehensive source with the details you're looking for. I'm pretty busy this week, so not sure how much time I'll have before Thursday. I've learned a lot going through this process with you, and sincerely appreciate the effort you've put in. Thanks so much! PMV1111 (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there[edit]

Hey DGG, I’m not entirely sure if this is a problem for editors who use desktops but for some reason a wrong markup/syntax inserted in your tp is causing your Tp to appear in a strange manner for mobile editors, I tried fixing it now but it didn’t work. Celestina007 (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

try to tell me the problem; then I' try to reproduce it on my phone--- DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)`[reply]
Oh I’m sorry I’m just seeing this, the problem is from a mobile editors point of view, your last message is User talk:DGG#October 2021, so I literally have to click on that and manually scroll down to see your latest/most recent message. It has been that way for a while now. My guess is someone inserted a problematic code or syntax when responding to you, But it appears other than mobile editors not many are seeing this, so it may not be that much of a big deal. Celestina007 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Celestina007, I fixed one error, but there may be more . is the problem still there? DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s partially rectified, but it’s really no big deal. Keep safe my friend. Celestina007 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G13 list for 11/8/21[edit]

Hello, DGG,

Occasionally, a well-intentioned editor using AWB will do a mass edit that will affect a large number of pages simultaneously. That happened last May 8th with some drafts that had been moved from the main space to Draft space. They appear in the Notes section of User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon for this day as "draftified". This means that instead of our typical daily number of expiring drafts, which is usually around 200-250 pages, on November 8th, we will have 512! So as not to overwhelm either a draft reviewer like you or a draft page deleter, every day I've been delaying about 20 of these draftified drafts for another six months. So far, most of them involve geographic articles whose accuracy was questioned by Fram. But I think it's better that they be evaluated later, a couple dozen at a time, than to try to review 120+ in one sitting. So, whenever you get around to reviewing this day's list, feel free to skim through the drafts that are listed as draftified as most of them will have been postponed.

It's interesting to me that daily G13 numbers are way up in late April and early May than the typical daily numbers. I'm beginning to think the fluctuation in expiring drafts has less to do with page creators' activity than in page reviewers' activity since it seems like many editors, unfortunately, don't return to work on drafts once they have been declined. Perhaps there was an unofficial AFC backlog drive during these months? Any way, I hope all is well with you! Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one group due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TableSalt342/Archive Many of these are short geographical articles that would be fixable, or even that just need to be checked, and I see that for many of them you postponed deletion. I am not sure that draftifying them was the right course. There's another group accumulated do so some less-than-ideally-competent reviews, discussed sufficiently elsewhere.
Otherwise I do not see any specific pattern.
As you mention , the real problem is that we don't review fast enough to catch the editors while they're still around. But how to dealwith these is a problem which needs rethinking, because theavailable and interested people are not sufficient to do the necessary work.
I am not about to make a formal proposal that other people do more work, but I would have an easier job screening the expiring articles if at least in my own field people clearing the G13s did not delete a discarded draft where there is unmistakable evidence of notability, but unless there are more people than I to work on them, there still remains the job of fixing them. Perhaps the standard should be that if it's a viable stub at 6 months, it should be passed, & (much more difficult to do) if it would be a viable stub if one reference could be found in a quick search, iy should looked for, not deleted without looking. What I'm saying, is perhaps a modified version of BEFORE should apply to G13 deletions. But I know that this is an amount of work which would require much more careful reviewing, and there are far too few reviewers prepared to work properly at this level.
That G13s will be restored is useless if the editors are no longer around. But then, the requests for automatic restoration should have been unnecessary if the editors were around--deleting is what seems to get attention. (This is not the only place in WP where it seems to work. I wish we could devise something more friendly, but I am skeptical it would work as effectively. Warnings no matter how worded do not attract the same immediate attention. )
I am always in danger of falling behind, and any problem in the RW--and there always will be--, or any major distraction in WP--such as the recent Arb request--can cause a crisis. I have it organized so I can catch up for 1 day or sometimes 2 by checking the deleted drafts, but I cannot go beyond this. Even within AfC there is so much more I should be doing--in particular, trying to educate the lower quality reviewers--and figure out how to deal with the ones who insist on doing it wrong -- the only quiet technique I have here is to check their work to at least to catch the most erroneous instances--I normally just fix them. If they question me about it, I explain. Doing thework would be twice as easy if there weren't so many doing it wrong--and if we had more helpful templates. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to give you another head's up on a weird fluctuation we have coming up in the days ahead. On November 17th's list we have 520 expiring drafts! There are almost 150 drafts expiring in the 1500 UTC hour alone. Unlike the previous high number, this isn't due to a simultaneous mass page draftification along with a mass AWB edit (I've begun to have misgivings about mass AWB edits) but due to an editor named Killarnee who did a huge copyedit project on this one day at this one time. So, I don't feel like I can justify another large postponement of drafts since it seems like it was done randomly.
But to balance things out, on November 14th, there are only 89 drafts which is the lowest number I've ever seen on a SDZeroBot G13 soon list. I've never seen a list go below 100 drafts. What is weird is that the page states that there are 278 expiring drafts but I checked with SD0001 and the top number is a miscount and there are actually just 89 drafts so that day should go quickly for you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on another article I accepted Falguni Nayar[edit]

I had accepted it after rejection/commenting (it was again a declared COI). But hearing your thoughts now, I am reconsidering. Please help with your thoughts on it and take necessary action if required. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Nomadicghumakkad Where is the COI declared, please? I would expect to see someone insert {{Connected contributor}} or {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on its talk page to identify the COI editor well. I have chosen to ask the community to decide. I saw this as I was leaving DGG the note below.
You are at liberty to nominate articles for deletion yourself even if you may have accepted them at AFC. We are allowed to have doubts and ask the community. I have done this. Sometimes the discussion showed my acceptance to be good, other times poor. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey FiddleTimtrent, I am not able to locate it but I have a memory of it. I should have been more careful before saying COI Declared. Because from what I am seeing now, the last editor who submitted said they didn't have a COI [4]. I think I have a memory of this being COI declared case because it clearly seemed so. 23:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The creating editor for Karan Tanna[edit]

Looking at their initial editing pattern I recognise it as one normally exhibited by paid editors getting to auto confirmed status. You may disagree. I have left a warning on their talk page against paid editing. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't surprise me. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page [| Manhattan Associates] should not be protected / deleted because...[edit]

This page should not be protected / deleted because it refers to an existing company listed on Nasdaq like many others that are referenced on Wikipedia. The purpose of the page is to share information about history of the company with relevant sources. Nothing related with advertising or promotional as you mentioned in your comment. Note that there are already translated versions of the Manhattan Associates page in French and Indy languages for years without any issue. French: [[5]] Could you please unlock this page ?EspA34 (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. If one or both apply, please make the relevant declaration on your user page. That's thefirst step. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernestine H. Stevens is all set[edit]

Hello, you rescued the draft for Ernestine_H._Stevens (because she is notable) but may not have seen there is a full article for her here: Ernestine H. Stevens. This is my fault, I was making an article for her but I couldn't get around the auto-wikidata aspect in the draft so I just made a new article. I don't know if you want to undo the rescuing or what but wanted to let you know. Thank you! Jessamyn (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessamyn Thanks for doing a complete article, we really needed one. I hadn't known about her before, and I should have. I've removed the draft as unecessary; Wikidata is a wonderful idea, but geting it to work right has proven unexpectedly difficult. The people having developed it are some of my friends, and I tell them I will use it when they finish. As you have seen, the only way to handle wikidata is to not use the templates, but write from scratch. I want to congratulate you on your long history of careful work over the years. -- DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)``[reply]
Thank you so much. I've been slowly but surely building up notable librarian content on Wikipedia over time. I agree about Wikidata, it's AMAZING but the way it interfaces with Wikipedia is presuming a finished product completely full of data and pulling Wikidata info into an infobox when the info isn't all there means you have to add info to Wikidata first and that just makes a lot more work. I'm hoping they can get a linked data situation where they can pull data from infoboxes IN to Wikidata but that's a big ask since people aren't often putting citations into infoboxes. Ah well, we muddle forward. Jessamyn (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your eyes, please[edit]

CohnReznick - first impressions are that it was created by someone with a COI, it doesn't pass GNG or N, poorly sourced, and on and on. I am contemplating an AfD but wanted your thoughts first. Atsme 💬 📧 19:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

too old to draft, unfortunately. Certainly afd, but it might be prudent to check WP:BEFORE just in case. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Review[edit]

I work for Zendesk. I was wondering if you would be willing to review the one-paragraph Controversies section. A while back, I tried to jump-start a 3-year-old discussion on it here to no avail. Tskillin (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the last ref is 5 years old. Please propose a replacement expanded paragraph on the talk p., bringing it up to date; then notify me. No promises, but i will try to look at it. -- DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly give feedback about Draft:Theranostics[edit]

Respected DGG Sir, Draft:Theranostics is not yet reviewed, sir.

I have commented. You need to fix it before it can get reviewed. `` -- DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Books & Bytes – Issue 47[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

  • On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
  • Search tool deployed
  • New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Draft:Karen Chatman[edit]

Hello, I am Uma Sori, I did not add Artemus Gaye, nor Princess Karen Chatman just to be adding them. Maybe I did not use Wikipedia in its proper form. But instead of the contributors assisting me, they went on to block my IP address. Alford wrote his book, Prince Among Slaves, based off the facts provided a collection of the stories provided by my family. I did not just provide Gaye and Chatman's names to just add them to a story. Please review the descendant's document provided by Terry Alford you can view the descendants such as; Ester the Great Great Grandmother of both Gaye and Chatman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uma971 (talk • contribs)

Reading your comment on this Draft, I have to inquire whether you really understood the article correctly. You said "He's notable not for having been from a noble family, but because of the subsequent developments and his published work."

The thing is, it isn't a 'he' that the article is about - all of the developments and books mentioned in the draft actually have to do with the article subject's great-great-grandfather, who already has his own page. There is only one paragraph about the subject herself, and it reports nothing consequerntial about her. Indeed, this draft seems to be a trojan horse content fork, created to bypass a content dispute on the ancestor's page. (Please ignore if this is not the case, if you simply made a typo on the gender but you are aware of material not currently in the draft that makes Princess Karen herself notable, rather than just her ancestor Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori.).Agricolae (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct. I misread.. I've struck my comment. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Govy[edit]

Notice

The article Govy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Most sources seem to advertise their work with very little context. I searched the names "Angélique Adrianna Govy", "Jimmy Owenns", and "Kennedy James" and couldn't find significant, reliable sources. Also, see Talk:Govy. Please read the sources, many of the links are not even working.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yleventa2 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Pages - Found?[edit]

@DGG

Hi there! I am not very familiar yet with the en.wikipedia, but came across what seems to be a duplicate. Please check the following pages and advise accordingly. Thanks.

Norwegianization of the Sámi People and Norwegianization

Regards

Louie (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Norwegianization of the Sámi People seems a left-over from a page move. I've deleted it; the history is complicated. But it's partly my fault, I should have checked more thoroughly. Thanks for letting me know, DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help[edit]

DGG, Thanks for your help with the Carl Cover, Stanley Kennedy Sr., Walter Hamilton (airline executive) articles and the helpful tips included. Sorry this "thanks" is so late in coming. I hope you have a wonderful Holiday Season!KlausVonVilver (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of Quinelle Holder[edit]

Hello,

I've been working on some edits of pages related to hip hop's so-called "blog era" and artists from the DMV. In my research looking for sources for the pages, I came across a figure I thought worthy of a Wikipedia page, Quinelle Holder. I got about halfway done with a draft before I saw there were two previous attempts at creation in 2017 and again in 2020. After the 2020 creation, the page was deleted again and you protected it. Per WP:SALT, I'm reaching out to see if you think the page is worthy of a recreation. I've placed a complete draft in my Sandbox. I think he's notable and worthy of a page as a prominent figure in both the DMV hip hop scene and the history of hip hop's blog era. His notability has definitely increased since 2017 and I can't attest to the writing of either previous attempt, but I believe I have a detailed, fleshed out page. Let me know what you think and if this is even worth attempting. -JoeyHarmon (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

although I do not work with articles of popular music or musicians, I do work with material related to publicists and press agents. I am, in particular, very interested in the role of publicists and press agents in Wikipedia. I need to first ask you about conflict of interest: have you any connection with this individual, or any of the other individuals you have written about? If so, is it a paid connection? I am asking this especially because the original article was started , and then started again after deletion, by an undeclared paid editor, who was, very appropriately, blocked from editing here.
i also see that the material added about his subsequent career does not include any further actual activity promoting notable musicians--the one musician he was particular associated with, Desiigner has apparently not released anything inn the last 3 years. The references show him listed on a 35 under 35 list, which is a meaningless publicity gimmick, another similar list, and giving talks on panels.
Considering the lack of any very obvious additional notability , I want first to be reassured about COI. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I appreciate the quick response. I am in no way connected to the subject or receiving any payment of any kind. Looking at the page's deletion log and the AfD, I can see that whoever attempted previously was obviously connected or close with Quinelle (maybe him himself? lol). I honestly wasn't familiar with him at all until the last couple of weeks. I came across him and thought he'd be a worthy addition.
As far as I can tell, he no longer works with Desiigner. He was working with the rapper before the song went viral and then became his tour manager after Desiigner signed with a major label (GOOD Music). Since then, despite "Panda" going 4x platinum, Desiigner has mostly fell off and has not been able to capitalize on his stardom. As far as I can tell, Holder stopped working for him a few years ago. More recently he's worked with prominent DMV rappers Trey Songz, Young Crazy, and most notably Pusha T. Pusha T is perhaps the most famous rapper to come out of the DMV in the last 20 years. Holder was hired to help run his DMV-centric label, Heir Music Group.
As for the lists and panels, I included those to establish his notoriety as a figure in the DMV music scene and someone who is respected by his industry peers. But if you think they're inappropriate for inclusion, please let me know. Hope I addressed your questions and concerns. Thanks! -JoeyHarmon (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Recreation of Quinelle Holder[edit]

Hello,

I've been working on some edits of pages related to hip hop's so-called "blog era" and artists from the DMV. In my research looking for sources for the pages, I came across a figure I thought worthy of a Wikipedia page, Quinelle Holder. I got about halfway done with a draft before I saw there were two previous attempts at creation in 2017 and again in 2020. After the 2020 creation, the page was deleted again and you protected it. Per WP:SALT, I'm reaching out to see if you think the page is worthy of a recreation. I've placed a complete draft in my Sandbox. I think he's notable and worthy of a page as a prominent figure in both the DMV hip hop scene and the history of hip hop's blog era. His notability has definitely increased since 2017 and I can't attest to the writing of either previous attempt, but I believe I have a detailed, fleshed out page. Let me know what you think and if this is even worth attempting. -JoeyHarmon (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

although I do not work with articles of popular music or musicians, I do work with material related to publicists and press agents. I am, in particular, very interested in the role of publicists and press agents in Wikipedia. I need to first ask you about conflict of interest: have you any connection with this individual, or any of the other individuals you have written about? If so, is it a paid connection? I am asking this especially because the original article was started , and then started again after deletion, by an undeclared paid editor, who was, very appropriately, blocked from editing here.
i also see that the material added about his subsequent career does not include any further actual activity promoting notable musicians--the one musician he was particular associated with, Desiigner has apparently not released anything inn the last 3 years. The references show him listed on a 35 under 35 list, which is a meaningless publicity gimmick, another similar list, and giving talks on panels.
Considering the lack of any very obvious additional notability , I want first to be reassured about COI. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I appreciate the quick response. I am in no way connected to the subject or receiving any payment of any kind. Looking at the page's deletion log and the AfD, I can see that whoever attempted previously was obviously connected or close with Quinelle (maybe him himself? lol). I honestly wasn't familiar with him at all until the last couple of weeks. I came across him and thought he'd be a worthy addition.
As far as I can tell, he no longer works with Desiigner. He was working with the rapper before the song went viral and then became his tour manager after Desiigner signed with a major label (GOOD Music). Since then, despite "Panda" going 4x platinum, Desiigner has mostly fell off and has not been able to capitalize on his stardom. As far as I can tell, Holder stopped working for him a few years ago. More recently he's worked with prominent DMV rappers Trey Songz, Young Crazy, and most notably Pusha T. Pusha T is perhaps the most famous rapper to come out of the DMV in the last 20 years. Holder was hired to help run his DMV-centric label, Heir Music Group.
As for the lists and panels, I included those to establish his notoriety as a figure in the DMV music scene and someone who is respected by his industry peers. But if you think they're inappropriate for inclusion, please let me know. Hope I addressed your questions and concerns. Thanks! -JoeyHarmon (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoeyHarmon , give it a try, but do it it Draft space. When you're ready submit it. It will have to be reviewed by an admin to go into main space, but I'd want someone familiar with the subject to look at it first. I do know that what will count will be working with other notable people, but there has to be aa clear designation of the role--e.g., instead of "working with", your ref 6 give "Chief publicist for...." which is much better. But Heir Musics Group does not have an article of its own, and I'm not clear if working with it is the same as being the publicist for Pusha himself. It may also help to establish articles for other people he's worked for. You will understand that WP has a somewhat skeptical atttitude to publicists and press agents in all fields. We have also become very reluctant to accept 35 under 35 , etc., and I usually remove it from articles in all subjects. You can leave the panels, but remove the namedropping of other people who received the same award as he--even tho I know you put it in to indicate the importance of the award. (and to reassue anyone who looks at this that I'm not working beyon my limits, my comments are based on what works in other fields--I have no idea what's accepted as enough in this one) DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I hear you both about your expertise on the subject matter and Wikipedia's completely understandable hesitance when it comes to people in publicity. I came to you first just because you were the one to do the page protection in 2020, per WP:SALT. I'll take your recommendation, remove the text you suggested, and submit it for review. Thanks for your help! -JoeyHarmon (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Draft:Marianna Kharlamova[edit]

I am at the limit of my skill to review this. Would you please look at it and consider whether it will pass muster once some improvements such as those I suggest have been made? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG and Timtrent. If someone works further on this draft, they might look at Applications of Pristine and Functionalized Carbon Nanotubes, Graphene, and Graphene Nanoribbons in Biomedicine. This is a review article she wrote that gives an overview of her carbon nanotube work, and explains its medical relevance. Her paper is from October 2021. The work looks important to me. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston Thank you. I almost always review once and once only. I consider that fresh eyes do a better job than those who have reviewed a draft once. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fortunately, we do not have to decide on the actual scientific value of people's contributions; this is something reserved for appointment committees of universities and similar bodies. We judge by what external sources say about them. For scientists, the external sources that mater are other people in the field, and the way we determine what they think is by how much they cite the person's publications, and whether they give highly prestigeous senior positions and major awards and similar factors which we can see and evaluate, as explained in WP:PROF. The usual factor is citations Looking at google scholar, her citation figures as of now are 76, 60, 54, 41, 35, 34 ..., The highest figure is, as it often is, for a review article, and they are cited more than others. The absolute level of citations in a field depend on the people working in the field, but in most active fields of the experimental physical science we would expect at least one paper and preferably two with at least 100 citations. (in experimental biomedicine, the expectations are twice that). We can if necessary make a benchmark by looking at the citations other researchers in the filed--checking for those publishing on single walled nanotubes, we find people wit the highest citations of 5025, 3441, 2223, 1877, 1201, 586, 490 ..., which is another order of magnitude. This confirms she does not meet the WP standards for citations. Nor would we expect her to--if we look at the auxiliary standard of holding a distinguished professorship, she is still only a post-doc, and does not even have her first permanent appointment. If we look for major awards, she has only student awards. If we look for editor-in-chief of major journals, she is only a special issue editor and a reviewer. She is not a member of a national academy of sciences; she is not the president of a national society.
  2. If she were notable, the draft would need extensive editing. It's a CV, where by convention one includes everything. It shows the typical emphasis on minor material when there's nothing major, it makes no attempt to follow our format or style, it duplicates material. I could edit it quickly enough, by removing the 80% that doesn't belong, by correcting the English, and adding the citation figures. but nothing I or anyone could do could show notability at this point in her career.
  3. What's more, it's an autobiography. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Korangy[edit]

Hi. May you please move the deleted text of Alireza Korangy to Draft so that I can work on it? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done, as you probably know already. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

true notability[edit]

(from Karan Tanna article discussion)

My own rule in cases like this is when there is no evidence of substantial accomplishments such as would generate a genuine news story, anything published is likely to be unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to express your thoughts at Nomination of Sadat Hossain for deletion[edit]

If you are able to express your thoughts and regards again Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadat Hossain (3rd nomination) it will be helpful. He is famous and renowned writer in Bangladesh and IMDB listed Director. It is third time it nominated for deletetion. I think this is personal vendetta to delete this article. I hope you can review the article and give your opinion about keep or delete it. Jubair Sayeed Linas (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palmyra palm fruit[edit]

Draft:Palmyra palm fruit seems to overlap with Borassus_flabellifer#Fruit. PamD 11:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't catch that, I'll try to merge. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission of Draft:Christopher Hourigan[edit]

Hi DGG––Thank you for reviewing Draft:Christopher Hourigan for notability. I have updated this page to include citations to their work and have resubmitted. Please let me know if you have additional comments. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZAttenuata (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do as I advised earlier--look him up in Google Scholar, make sure you have included the 4 most cited paper, and add to each the number of citation, using the Google Scholar page as a reference. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. I have updated this page to include a reference to his Google Scholar page as well as a mention of his 4 most cited works. This is listed in the last sentence before the 'Education' section. I did not make changes to the 'Notable Publications' section, which includes highly cited works in which he held first or last authorship. I did not include the number of citations per publication as this number is a moving target. Please let me know if this should be done in a different manner or style. Thank you for your time and review! ZAttenuata (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the way to hndlethe "number of citations" is to specify the date accessed for the web site. At least, it can only increase, Statment of "most" with numbers aremeaningless. But I will take a look. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me! Did you end up taking a look at the page? And/or should I go ahead and list the "number of citations"/specify the date accessed for each? Thanks again! ZAttenuata (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Jean-Marcel Goger[edit]

Information icon Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Jean-Marcel Goger to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. BostonMensa (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

 org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1056563129 -->

Checking in re: duplicate article creations[edit]

Hello DGG! I've just come across the articles Jennie E. Brand and Jennie E. Brand (sociologist), which are about the same person. I've CSD tagged the latter since its mainspace creation was more recent and it has nothing that the other, longer article doesn't have – but I noticed that you edited Jennie E. Brand in 2019, and then approved, cleaned up, and disambiguated Jennie E. Brand (sociologist) from AfC in May of this year. At that time the first sentence of the former article was very similar to the only two sentences in the latter, certainly enough to demonstrate that they were the same person. I just wanted to ensure you're aware of this in case it has any implications for changes you might want to make to your AfC disambiguation process – or, if it was just a one-time honest mistake, feel free to ignore it! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check. I tend to deal just with the article before me. we need a better way of finding previously existing articles, and duplicate draft/articles. Very recently, I started checking manually, at least sometimes. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gallium_68_PSMA-11 still these pages are not in acceptable form[edit]

Sir, please let me know still these pages are not in the acceptable form Draft:Gallium_68_PSMA-11 and Draft:Theranostics. If I wrote an article to a journal about Draft:Theranostics they might have accepted that within this time sir. It seems to be even difficult to get it published here. If you feel the article on theranostic is not acceptable, I am ready to withdraw it, the writings and drawing for the article will be utilized in some other places, It will be worthy. Thank you. Sorry for disturbing you again and again sir. Rahulsoman (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will take me a few days to get to it. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahulsoman, the development and usage sections of the Gallium68 article are unclear. Radiolabelling what? The decision for therapy is much more complicated than presented and should be left for elsewhere. The Theranostics articles is still both unclear and misleading , for example "Nanotheranostics are one of the greatest outcomes of nanomedicine, still the research outputs are in infancy, " You presumably mean potentially one of the greatest outcomes, but you condensed and paraphrased the wording from ref 13. You'd have to say, according to X, and then give a quote.

As I think I suggested, you need these checked by a native or near-native English speaker who knows the subject. It's your responsibility, not mine. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC) �[reply]

Resubmitting my draft Ana Maria Gayoso[edit]

Hi there, I've seen you review my draft of Ana Maria Gayoso Could you please review it to see if it now meets the standard of wikipedia publication ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ana_Mar%C3%ADa_Gayoso

I've found independant secondary and reliable sources to justify the creating of this article and created section to structure her biography.

As Argentina is slowly starting to dig out documents about her life, new sources will soon be available by officials

Thanks a lot for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamudauw (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will take me a few days to get to it. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hamudauw I made some adjustments. (for example, we only link the first occurrence of a term) You might want to add a list of her most cited papers, using Google Scholar. Good work!

Draft:Andrea Unger - Submission Declined[edit]

Hello DGG, first of all thank you to taking time to review my article. I don't understand several things and I'm here to ask your help. You wrote that this is a promotional article.. I don't understand why and how. Moreover in your comment I read "complete with pull qotefrom a source thatWP doesn ot consider reliable". I can assure that Il_Sole_24_Ore is the most important financial newspaper in Italy... it is absolutely reliable. After that you wrote: "substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources". I followed the suggestions of Theroadislong and I put many reliable and relevant sources: Le iene (television program broadcast on the Italian channel Italia 1), MF_Milano_Finanza, Libero_(newspaper), Finder_(website). At the end, I inserted many books that talks about the author. Please help me to understand what is the best way to complete my research about the author and update the page. Thanks in advance. Angio92 (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will take me a few days to get to it. But I did misunderstand the journal name-my apologies. But I think pull quotes are almost always non-encyclopedic. And you used the headline. The headline is not part of the article, and not subject to the same editorial control--newspapers use it for effect. "Greatest" is a term that is usually best avoided. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks again for your answer. I agree with you. I think the best way in this case is to remove the pull quote. After that I'm really open to receive suggestions if there is a way to improve (using other reliable sources) the notability of the author. Many thanks for help. Angio92 (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion 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 16:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFC reviewers[edit]

Hello, David,

I know that you are not in charge of AFC but I had a comment that I thought I'd direct to you because I think you make an effort to instill some basic quality control among reviewers at AfC.

For over a year now, the bulk of my time on Wikipedia is dealing with aging drafts. I think at this point, over 40% of my edits are to User talk pages, leaving messages, from deletion notices to Welcome to Wikipedias to Teahouse Invitations to warnings about autobiographies (I post that one dozens of times/day) to personal messages. And one thing I've noticed is that not all AfC reviewers copy their draft evaluations to the talk pages of the page creators. After looking at thousands of user talk pages, I'd say that there are 12-15 AFC reviewers who do the bulk of reviewing but there are a couple who do not copy their review of the draft to the page creator. So, when I come along, 6 months later, I can find that there is no user talk page at all, the editor has gotten no welcome, no message about their draft...their first message from another editor on Wikipedia is a notice from me, saying that their draft has been deleted. And because the draft has now been deleted, they have no access to see the feedback from the AfC reviewer because there is no copy of it on their user talk page.

I'm not going to name names because I'm currently looking at drafts from May 2021 and it could be that these reviewers' habits have changed since then. But I will say that those reviewers who are guilty are not new reviewers but editors who have been here for 10 years or longer. So, without knowing how AfC works, I'm wondering if there are some reviewing tools that automatically copy draft reviews to user talk pages and these old school editors are not using the latest tools or scripts that would handle this for them. I wouldn't be as concerned if these AfC reviewers reviewed only a few drafts but some of them are pretty active so this lack of communication has the potential to affect a lot of new editors.

That's all I have to say. But I've been thinking about it for a long time now and I wasn't sure how to make a query about it. If you want to copy this over to the AfC talk page, that's fine with me. I hope you have a restful Thanksgiving Day weekend. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only some of the problem is technical. Everyone should be using the AFCH macro. Unlike 5 years ago, it almost always works.Using it, there's a box to send the review to the editor. It just has to be checked, but it should be changed to be checked as the default (there are times with trolls and jerks where one doesn't want to). (As precedent, we changed the default some years ago to notify of deletions when using Twinkle.
What there isn't, is a automatic way to send a comment to the editor: the notification just says: you have a comment. I deal with this manually, by copying it over. (I don't have an automatic procedures, but it's very fast if I copy the comment before sending it, and click on the contributor name when it appears as the macro is working, and then replace the relevant part of the text.). There should be a box as for the initial review, & it should be pre-checked. It should be trivial to program, and I've been asking for it for several years now.
People who don't do this need to be advised. I'm better placed to do this than you, & I've learned how to say such things even to experienced editors without usually getting them too angry. If they won't learn, it can be difficult; it's similar to admins who don't send notices, etc. There are a few admins who openly on their user talk pages announce they do not warn of forthcoming deletions, and routinely do G11s single handed. In a few extreme cases, arb com has dealt with those who refuse to respond to queries or respond rudely, but if admins started interfering every time they disagree, given the sort of people we have here, we'd fight forever, so there's a rough understanding to usually refrain from too much criticism of each other.
But some of it is attitude.
There is a trade off between reviewing all the drafts promptly and reviewing them well. There are two ways to balance this in a practical way: one is to judge from experience who will be benefitted by comments, and give them substantial help , while spotting the ones who are paid editors or just playing around, and not wasting too much time over them. The other is to not say much, unless someone asks or complains. In practice, I think all good reviewers do the first as much as they can, but sometimes we all do need to resort to the second technique to some degree also. It's hard to teach this sort of judgment, and the way to learn is, first, to follow good examples, and then, to do enough work while paying attention to the results to get a feel of it.
When something's wrong, I do advise new reviewers, and they usually respond. for experienced ones, it can be much more difficult, but I have developed a style that sometimes works. (The first step is just to notify them I accepted something they declined, (etc) or advised a contributor, but not saying they did anything wrong) But I do this very seldom, because the way it works, we must get along--it's as important as doing things right, and it does have a danger of letting people get too far out of line. I've done things wrong too, and people have almost always been nice about it, tho iII hope I try to learn. Same is true in the RW: one of my neighbors won't fix his sidewalk; I could ask for an inspector to give him a summons, but we're going to be living next to each other for many years. So I do not want to call people out in public if there's any alternative.

I'll copy this over in a day or too, when people are more apt to pay attention. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Besharat[edit]

Hi, please move the deleted text of Mohammad Ali Besharat to Draft so that I can work on it. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pirhayati Done. Be sure to include list most-cited papers with citation numbers. Please check with me before re-submitting. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_178_Nov._2021&oldid=1062215808"