User talk:DGG/Archive 79 Aug. 2013

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

Deletion review for Tor Johannes Helleland hacking incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tor Johannes Helleland hacking incident. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kebabipita (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about CSD G4

Hi, could you maybe clarify WP:CSD#G4 criteria for me cause I seem to be misunderstanding it. Martin Guevara Urbina was deleted at AFD last month and the concusses was that he didn't meet WP:ACADEMIC, and as far as I can tell the recreated article didn't really address this issue. I had thought that G4 was appropriate here, could you explain why it isn't and where you think it is appropriate to use so I don't make anymore mistakes in the future? Thanks. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not make a mistake. Anyone (except the author) may decline a speedy for any good faith reason at all, including the likelihood that they might fix the article. It would not have been wrong to delete, and it's not wrong not to delete it. (this wouldn't apply for unfixed copyvio or abusive BLP or vandalism, of course) I wouldn't have declined the speedy unless I thought I could fix it. I think he's notable as an author, and I think I can prove it. One ed. said , for example, that he's a prolific writer, but that doesn't meet WP:ACAD, apparently not considering that there might be enough discussion of his work to meet NAUTHOR. I've found two good reviews already. I also think the AfD was affected by the promotional nature of the article, which I have extensively rewritten. If you don't agree, there's AfD, but I did put an underconstruction tag on it d appreciate a few days to find the necessary material. . DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOJSISOVICS

HEy there Dgg,

was just wondering if you had a chance could you please take another look at the mojsisovics article. A few items could be cleared up esp. PND, punctation etc. I haven't a clue how to do these taks 'cause it's all new to meand would greatly appreciate if you could either take a look or provide some hints.

Thanks Austriancomposers (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your proverbial phrase

Hi DGG, I borrowed your "... expect to find something". Hope this kind of use finds your approval.

As a side note, I'm not usually into name dropping but could not resist there for a (or so I think) good cause.

Cheers, --217.81.185.254 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC) proudly being an ethical IP since the pre-Seigenthaler era[reply]

Yes, I meant it to apply to making valid redirects under very closely related words, such as "socialize"and "socialization"; it's a valid redirect; I'm not sure a distinct article could be written. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of IPv6 support by major transit providers

DGG, I wasn't finished editing the deletion tag and it appears you only addressed the first phrase of the reasoning. the reason was a7 which i think it more than qualifies for. Do I need to add it to AFD or can it go back into speedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgeddis (talk • contribs) 07:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did see your second reason--there was an edit conflict. If the items are notable, the comparison may be also. The standard for a7 is less than notability in any case, it's no indication of importance. I don't think that can be fairly said. I suggest you consider how the article might be improved, but if you think it impossible, use AfD, and the community will decide, instead of just the two of us. I personally am not the least sure whether or not it will be deleted there: AfD can be unpredictable. Comparison articles are particular unpredictable. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I see what you're saying now regarding your 'comparison' annotation. What he's creating is a list rather than a comparison. Effectively, what it appears he's trying to create is a list of all the IPv6 peers on the internet. Something that is sparsely listed here http://www.cidr-report.org/v6/as2.0/. I don't ever see it getting achieved as this data changes, literallyl second by second, it's not notable, and has no chance of ever being accurate.Jgeddis (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's regarded as a list of the ones who have Wikipedia articles--the usual standard for such lists-- it's justified and will probably pass AfD, based on all recent precedents. That's many fewer than "all the ones on the internet". All lists of companies etc. change; but the list of those with articles is going to change much slower than the total list of those in existence. If you are arguing the scope is inappropriate--either too broad or too narrow or misconceived, it can be altered. But this needs AfD, where those interested can comment--if it isn't obvious, it's not for speedy. It is much better to get a community decision that will establish the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barada Bhushan Chakraborty

Fine with me, I've made a couple of minor tweaks too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Black re France Jodoin

Thank you so much for your help on France Jodoin. I will do what you suggested and will get back to you soon. HeatherBlack (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G11 of an AfC?

I noticed you tagged Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EtQ, Inc. for speedy deletion under G11. Don't we generally not delete good-faith AfC submissions just for reading too much like an advertisement, or do you see something I don't? I've untagged it for now; put it back if I'm wrong. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

opinions vary. I also consider whether it looks like there is any chance of an article if the promotionalism was removed. But if you think otherwise, then that's why I don't delete them by myself. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Black re France Jodoin etc

Hi again. I have added more copy to France Jodoin including the two group exhibitions at Circ du Soleil and Galerie Loto Quebec.

Re collections, I linked them to her CV, but I also wrote a note in the talk section explaining that when you exhibit in public galleries in Quebec the custom is to donate a work. I hope that is sufficient. On discribing Jodoin's art, she does not have a web statement. There are some on gallery websites though that I could use if you prefer..
Also, I have improved both the sources and tone for Jennifer Hornyak. Can I remove the box? Or if I shouldn't, can you? Or do I need more improvements.
Also thanks again for your comments re sources. I thought that websites were out of bounds because they are protected by copyright. And I thought that after published books, databases were good because #1 someone reviewed them, #2 there is no expectation of privacy, and #3 they include dates. Or is the issue with Canadian Who's Who is that it can't be verified online or I used it too much?
I am also confused re "Articles for Creation". I received a message saying that I don't need to submit through "A for C". But I use my protected zone, because I like to work on several at the same time. I also don't know how to submit them, but I assume that's the code at the end of the entry. Is it then possible for me to ask someone like yourself or the Teagarden to review them and put them where they are supposed to go? I'd like to do a good job, so I really appreciate any feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeatherBlack (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.For being in a permanent collection, we cannot infer-- we really need something published by the museum or a third party--and at the least we need to know what the specific artwork is.
Copyright prevents copying from a source, it does not prevent making use of it. Websites are usable if they are authoritative, as for a museum's web site. A person's personal website is also usable for routine uncontroversial facts about them, but only for uncontroversial facts, not statements of importance. If it's at an institution, such as a faculty page at a university, it is additionally quite reliable for details of their professional life , because people get fired if they give incorrect information about their credentials in a serious way. Again, it can not be used for judgements. Artist's websites at commercial galleries are written by the gallery, and have to be used with discretion, for they can amount to advertising. Canadian Who's who is usable if nothing better is available, but only for such uncontroversial facts--it has the same limitation as a personal website, because the individual supplies the material, and can say or omit what they please. Being included in it says nothing about importance. None of these sites are reliable for who influenced someone, because people can & do claim whatever they like, from Picasso downwards.
You may continue to use AfC if you like, but the previous unhelpful reviews show the limitations of relying on random reviewers. Just as anyone can edit here, anyone can review articles. Those of us who care are trying to improve the situation at least by giving reviewers advice when they say something unhelpful. I hope we can do more, but it's difficult in WP to enforce standards. Yes, you can ask me (within limits) or anyone to look at an article, or use the Teahouse--people helping there almost always know what they are doing. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your explanations are very helpful and I will contact you again on other submissions. HeatherBlack (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move Duckworth RfC to BLPN

Hello. You are one of 7 or 8 Admins who has supported including DOB info in the Duckworth article. See: Talk:Tammy Duckworth#RfC on providing full date of birth. Yesterday I proposed moving the discussion to the BLPN (where you have commented) so that we could get a policy determination on this and thereby avoid such prolonged and repeated discussions on article talk pages. In the last few comments I haven't seen a positive to my proposal. Would you care to opine on moving the discussion? (I've posted a similar message to each of the admins.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the only policy I could support is that each case must be decided individually, because it depends on the degree to which the date is widely known. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've said as much on the BLPN, but the only way we can get this really resolved is to get the RfC moved. If we get the discussion moved, I'll provide an easy access chart for editors to look at past BLP policy discussions. Please help in moving the RfC. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with making general policy based on individual difficulties, because people's view of the particular circumstances will unduly affect the general issue. Though I gave an opinion about my preference in this case, it does not really matter as far as the article is concerned. If someone else wants to move the discussion, they will move it. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Hill

Hi David,

I am new to this and I appreciate your help.

Re: Angela Hill

I am not a publicist for people related to New Orleans. I live in New Orleans and the day the New Orleans City Council honored Angela Hill, I went and took a picture specifically for WikiPedia. I took the picture so I would be able to donate the picture to the public domain. Angela Hill was a journalist in New Orleans from almost 40 years. She covered events around the world and had her own talk show for seven years. She interviewed President Bill Clinton, Tipper Gore, Willie Nelson, Orpah Winfrey, etc. In total she did 1688 shows. She has been awarded national awards, one is the Edward R. Murrow Award. She also appeared in the movie Tight Rope. What do you recommend?

Re: David Bernard

David Bernard is considered the Hurricane and Weather Expert for the CBS Evening News. There is evidence to support his title. He regularly appears on the CBS Evening News. What do you recommend?

Re: Irwin Marcus

I was working on Irwin Marcus. He has published several books. The book he is most famous for is Masturbation: From infancy to senescence. This book has been translated into 17 languages and is considered a psychoanalytic classic. He was a pioneer in child psychiatry, has lectured around the world, a founder of the New Orleans Psychoanalytic Institute, and his book Masturbation: From infancy to senescence has been cited in well over 1000 articles. What do you recommend?

"I need to remind you that WP does not publish CVs." Thank you, I will remove the publication and only keep the books he wrote. Is this okay?

"You cannot ascribe historical events during the tenure of a mayor to him unless a reliable source has done so." I have no commented on a mayor currently in office. Are you referencing Ray Nagin? If you are referencing Ray Nagin, I added the citation.

Thanks for your help.

Schwartzenberg (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Craig[reply]

I will try to give you the best advice I can about what does and does not work here, which will sometimes be different from my own opinion of what WP ought to be like. In practice people writing in a concentrated way like you do tend to attract attention; as we do not know who anyone is, we need to use clues. We judge by what people do, not what they say they are doing. Even if you want to self-identify, as seems the case, we still go by results and not motives, or at least I do.

So the job is how to write good articles about those who WP is likely to accept as notable, and my personal experience is that it is best to concentrate on the most important, if only to avoid wasting effort on those that won't work out well. This takes a balance of optimism and experience.

The notability of individuals is judged by the community. With respect to broadcast announcers, it's fair to say that many such discussions end in deletion, and in practice a very strong case is needed. All I intend to do is list articles individually for discussion if I think there's a reasonable possibility that the community will delete them. Either you will convince people, or not; I cannot guess the conclusions--the results of AfD for similar articles may be quite inconsistent. As a guide, the fact that someone regularly appears, or that they have interviewed famous people, is not considered evidence of anything here, people at WP go by what is written about them. (Personally, I've been saying for years we should go more by people's positions & what they have accomplished, rather than by what happens to be findable in the sources available to us, but the consensus remains firmly in the other direction.) It's difficult to establish the notability of journalists unless they win major national awards. I have tried , but not usually succeeded, in finding good sources. If Bernard is the hurricane expert, we need trustworthy 3rd party sources saying it.

For mayors and other politicians, the difficulty is separating the actual information from the public relations. Newspapers and magazines have both, and probably the judgement of no single source is totally reliable about political events. The tendency to praise and blame people over what happens during their time in office is very great, and it can be unfair in both directions. The best rule is to use a variety of sources, and to let them speak for themselves. It's better to avoid all interpretations, even sourced ones, for you will find a quote to support any political opinion. We try to say we do not do original research of make conclusions, but we necessarily do both to some extent when we select what materials to include. I make an analogy is with journalists--the same is the case there. It can't be avoided, and fairness needs to be actively sought. The more objectively an article is worded, the more confidence people will have in it. Articles here can usually be improved by removing as many adjectives as possible. It's especially important to remove terms like most , many, and some , because their meaning is indeterminate.

Of course Marcus is highly notable, and the thing I came here to do primarily is to ensure we have good articles on all important intellectual figures; it's a disgrace that we did not have one on him previously. I'll give some specific advice on that article's talk page about what to include, and I'm very willing to help with it--some changes are better shown than described, & I will make them. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I make the changes to Angela Hill in regard to the reasons cited for deletion. The citations added are independent and reliable. "what happens to be findable in the sources available to us" The sources I cite are fact and are findable. Links are included in the citations. Please advise if there is anything else I need to do. Thanks for you help. Schwartzenberg (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the consensus will decide: some other admin will draw the conclusion from what other people say. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance please, with Lyonnaise cuisine.

This article was originally at La cuisine lyonnaise, which was inappropriate, and was a direct move from the French Wikipedia. In preparing to copy-edit it, I moved it to Lyonnaise cuisine. For some reason, the move log shows it having been moved to Lyonnaise cuisine, but the page shows Lyonnaise cusine, which is spelled incorrectly. Can you please place the page at Lyonnaise cuisine? RGloucester — 📬 17:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot figure out what went wrong, but in any case I moved it to the right spelling. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. RGloucester — 📬 20:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of List of universities offering business courses in Uganda

I have created a replacement article at List of business schools in Uganda. Please peruse it and indicate if the new article meets your approval. If it does, I have no objection to the deletion of the original article, which was inappropriately named. If there is anything else I need to do about the new article, please let me know. ~~ ~~

OK, but please reformat it as a list, like the ones in Education in Uganda. They don;t need to be numbered, because they're inot in rank order, and since its alphabetical, there is really no need to sort. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

requesting salting of some Morning277 topics

I noticed some new accounts in which drafts were being made, closely following deleted Morning277 articles. I reported several of these at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Morning277 (search for "preparing to"--may soon be archived) and they've been blocked. However, it seems likely that the Morning277 editors will keep attempting to recreate those articles. Dennis Brown, who is away from the wiki, had recommended salting the topics. I made a request for that, WP:Deletion_review/Log/2013_August_5 and was advised to ask you first. —rybec 03:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. by "some" I only mean that this would be the first batch.

—rybec 03:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some comments at various places at the spi. Since they resubmit articles under variant name forms, salting isn't going to help. What I'd suggest is we make an IAR interpretation of G5 as overwhelming likely to be promotional puppetry, And another possibility is speedy as "recreation of indefinitely protected article under a variant name" , which could be considered A3, as an attempt to compromise the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where Dennis Brown suggested salting. I pointed out the recreation under different names, but he said it would still be helpful to salt. I noticed that you did Anthony Lolli and some others; thank you. I just posted in the SPI a couple more accounts that have drafts to replace deleted articles. My request at Deletion Review lists all the articles that were in the Sublimeharmony sandbox. —rybec 08:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new comment from Dennis Brown: [1] —rybec 21:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ZS_Genetics

Hi DGG

Thanks for your comment "They will not be notable until they have a product." on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ZS_Genetics. I have seen several biotechnology companies in the Wikipedia which have no product yet, but are known because of their technology. I included Boston Globe and Genomeweb references, which are independent third party reference. Genomeweb is considered very prestigious source in the DNA sequencing field. Genomeweb article was attached as PDF because some of its complete articles are available to subscribers only. Also ZS Genetics and its technology is quoted in at least one article Transmission electron microscopy DNA sequencing on Wikipedia. Any further suggestions to improve will be appreciated.Sh scientist (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you are aware of any others, let me know: we have accepted many articles in the past that ought never to have been accepted, and need to be deleted, unless perchance they have done something notable since then. And it is even possible that some such firms might be notable, but hardly a startup with --according to your AfC-- that is a 10 person firm with a few million dollars funding and no results for the last five years. I can't stop you resubmitting it, but my advice is to work on the science, not the publicity. DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, your advice is well taken. Honestly, the intention is not publicity here. As far as I know at one such company which has no product. Because, I happened to stumble upon it a few weeks ago, and edited it. It is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderna_Therapeutics. Sh scientist (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Bailey DRV

Your comment here that "if she played in the top level women's clubs, she's as notable as if she played in the men's clubs" shows a deep lack of understanding of WP:NFOOTBALL (and the sport in general!) I'm afraid. 'Top level' clubs are not mentioned anywhere with regards to notability, and nor should they be. Giant Snowman 09:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean that some sports are more important in some places than others, and in some sports the women are less important than the men. If by important you mean popular, I do not disagree. Whether a team or player can be fully professional obviously depends on the amount of revenue, a function of popularity, I'm aware the Sport projects here use this criterion as a basic principle. I would not say they are necessarily intrinsically wrong, but that's not the way WP notability usually works. In all other areas of life, if it comes to restricting coverage beyond the GNG, the top anything in a country are included. I know the view you take, I understand the reasons, and I think it incompatible with the way WP notability usually works. Your right to set your own standards depends if the community accepts them, and in this respect I do not think we should. Others will think according to either their view of the actual matter, or the autonomy of projects. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that "top level" is irrelevant when it comes to soccer notability. If we were to change the wording of NFOOTBALL (a community guideline, not something made up by the WP:FOOTBALL) to "has played in a top-level national league" then we would have heaps of articles created on players from Guam, Samoa, Swaziland, Andorra etc. etc. which would just be ridiculous. And if top-level is notable, does that mean that lower levels are not? What about England with a four-level professional system? Giant Snowman 08:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthologies

G'day DGG,

Thanks for your comment We normally accept inclusion in anthologies as notability [2], which as well as being a welcome contribution to that particular discussion interests me more generally.

I agree we should, but is this documented anywhere? I can't find any explicit mention in guidelines or policies or help pages, but perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places.

Or, are there other notability discussions where inclusion in anthologies has been cited as evidence? I don't lurk on AfD currently (I used to but WP:RM seemed to have a greater need) so I'd have missed them.

Any help appreciated. I'm vaguely thinking of proposing some sort of tweak to notability guidelines to better cover hymnists, and don't want to be reinventing the wheel and/or generating useless instruction creep. Andrewa (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we've routinely used this for poets and writers of short stories, and for short stories themselves-- see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouse (short story), where it was used in a negative sense, deleted for not being in anthologies. I don't know we've used it in this context before. There was an explicit guideline once somewhere; I typically have the sort of memory that always remembers if I've seen something, but not necessarily where or when. Actually, I consider this an exceedingly broad criterion, but so is NBOOK, and in consequence NAUTHOR. . DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Perm Tsar Cannon

Hello DGG! My article is, in fact, a translation (more or less) of the Wikipedia Russian language page on the Perm Tsar Cannon, with which I intended to make a link after acceptance. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пермская_Царь-пушка I thought it might be interesting for those who don't read Russian to learn something about one of the most famous monuments in Perm. The reference you object to is included in the Wikipedia Russian language article, so clearly no one objected to it when that article was submitted. And yes, some of the contents of the reference and the Russian language article in Wikipedia do coincide (which is not surprising since the information happens to be true). But I object to your phrase "This seems to be almost entirely a translation" - the Wikipedia article contains information which is not included in the city of Perm bulletin. Also, the phraseology is different. So what do you suggest I do? Drop the whole idea and leave English language readers ignorant? They can't read the city of Perm bulletin since it's in Russian. Remove the reference so as not to draw anyone's attention to it? Or do you have another proposal? Geoffrey Sharp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.127.222.68 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the ruWP did not notice, or perhaps their interpretation of copyvio is less demanding than that of the enWP. The way to deal with this is to rewrite the material, avoiding not just direct copying but Close paraphrase. Rewrite that part from scratch, changing not just the words, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Ostrow

first discussion

Hi, my name is John Jin could you tell me what as you contributed to Wikipedia:Page Ostrow articles for deletion/User:Imabookreader I am goingt to fix that article! don't delete that article!!

thanks (User:Imabookreader)

Second discussion hello; good morning!

sorry, I couldn't understand, what you mean.

we put on two website for references:

IMDb. Retrieved http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1041108/bio
Film Feature: Page Ostrow. Jesther Entertainment. Retrieved http://jestherent.blogspot.com/2011/03/film-feature-page-ostrow.html

these articles are provide about Page Ostrow's Biography!
I think it is not problem! if you want more references, I am going to put more references!!
and please recover to Ostrow and Company article!

thanks, have a good day. (User:Imabookreader)

okay, Thanks DGG! thank you for your information, I can provide magazin and newpaper coverage about her. can you check these website and consider to prove article of Page Ostrow.

picture of "HollywoodReporter about PageOstrow: http://instagram.com/p/V77Y-3m8Ix/ (2010 -- DG)
the article of "HollywoodReporter about PageOstrow: http://www.ostrowandcompany.com/images/news/hwoodreporter.gif (2001 -- DG)
Los Angeles Times article: http://www.ostrowandcompany.com/images/news/sundaypreview.gif
Splash Magazines - Page Ostrow: A Pioneer in the Film Industry http://www.lasplash.com/publish/Film_106/page-ostrow-a-pioneer-in-the-film-industry.php
about Film Financing and Distribution Talk http://sfiwff.festivalgenius.com/2012/films/brunchwithpageostrow_sfiwff2012_sfiwff2012
about Film distribution panel http://www.iffilmfest.org/index.php/events/panels

If you think these website is not enough to reference, tell me, which part is not enough? and how can I save article about "Page Ostrow"! thank you! (User:Imabookreader)

Response: I think things are a little clearer now. There are possibilities here. But first, as for the earlier references, the IMDB one merely shows what films she was associated with, and doesn't show notability. The second one is from a blog I do not recognize, & doesn't show notability either unless it is widely considered reliable--which may be the case, I am not an expert in this field. Of the later refs, the cover appears to be a paid advertisement, the short Hollywood Reporter article from 2001 does not say much but is usable; the LA times article is not about her, but does show her as an industry figure and is usable. The splash magazine article explains the role of a producer's representative, which none of us in the discussion understood--am I right that it is analogous to an author's or an actor's agent, but for filmmakers wanting their films to get made or distributed? Surely there were people who played this role in the industry before her? I think it might be clearer if you found some sources on this and wrote an article on the position, including other people than Ostrow. I gather she claims to have invented the role, but it will need some sources for that other than PR stories about her. Perhaps she invented the name. After that, try again with an article on Ostrow. I think it will hold. If it has additional references beyond those at the AfD , it won;tqualify for speedy deletion--and if there are problems, just tell me DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To submit a very revised draft?

Could you suggest how best to submit a revised article for your scrutiny? Am stumped on procedure. Your posting headed "advice" on AK’s talk page 2013-07-08 was specific and useful, and I heeded it. Style manual and talk pages help. A previous WP article I did needed a stronger lede, and editor(s) picked it up from my contributions list (I think) and advised on my talk page. For this one, I did a rewrite and now am stymied. So: submit this anew, or use Resubmit button, or....? But with same name-title as what's superseded? Will watch your talk page, and mine. JaneFaber (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David G. Benner. The latest version I see there is June 30, so if you did a rewrite, where is it? If not, it still needs considerable work. First fix it where it is, and then just ask me here to look at it. There are all sorts of complicated processes, but you don't have to use them; the thing to do is to write a good draft, That will be hard enough. I can do the mechanics. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate if you'd have a look at new text posted today at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David G. Benner. I pasted in a new draft under the same heading. Sources, length and tone have been changed. Your guidance will help divert any treacle. JaneFaber (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC) When you can, could you comment on the current version of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David G. Benner? I realize from reading entries that you're seriously busy but must ask. JaneFaber (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Entry: Brad Jefferson

Hi!
I was working on an article that got deleted because the references were unreliable. The sources were from interviews with the CEO of a company called Animoto. What types of sources should I be posting?

Thanks

Sorry! This is for a different entry that's not related to yours. (comment by User:Messier83)

I responded on your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: PcBazzar.com

I am the owner of page and company PcBazzar.com I have created a page in order to get my customers a detailed view about my company and it would have helped them to add anything they would like to add about my company. Kindly reverse the deletion and help.(posted by (User:Anshul.a.agrawal)

WP is an encyclopedia, and includes material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. It does not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to current or prospective client or customers; that sort of content is considered promotional. The place to supply material about your company to your customers is your own web site; the place to publicize it to prospective new customers is any of the many places that publish advertisements or press releases.

There is no indication your company is of sufficient importance that the general public would expect an encyclopedia article. To justify a Wikipedia article, there needs to needs be references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If you have such sources, it may be possible to rewrite the article; otherwise, it will not be possible to write an acceptable article.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. See our practical guide to conflict of interest, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Claude Cléret page was created again

Hello,

I see you speedily deleted Claude Cléret, a case of self-advertising. The page has been created again.

On w.fr, this page has been deleted 4 times already and created 5 times, each time by a new SPA, raising suspicions of sock-puppetry. We are considering (here and here protecting the page title from being created again. If you see the same behaviour, you may have to do the same. Place Clichy (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Place Clichy (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appcelerator at Articles for Creation

Hey, DGG. You left some helpful comments on my submission at AfC. I already made some changes in response, but I'd like to discuss a couple of your points a little further rather than just resubmit the article without major changes. If you have time, could you let me know what you think about my responses? —N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 16:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

commented--your changes are not sufficiently radical. Were the article approved now, there is a better than even chance it would be deleted by AfD, which would benefit nobody. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Nomination on Language Marketplace

Hi there. I've removed your nomination under CSD:G13 of the above mentioned article. Under the strictest reading of the criterion 2 tests must be bet.

Page is in the Articles for Creation project space (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation)
The page must have not been edited in over 6 months.

The page in question is not part of the AFC project space and was edited on July 25th 2013. Please be careful when nominating and only use the right rationale when appropriate. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, my error. A slip of the mouse with Twinkle. I meant A7 and G11. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Ways to Die in the West

MOVED FROM MQS's talk page.

Do you think you could perform a history merge? A Million Ways to Die in the West was originally here. The whole issue with User:Captain Assassin! is currently under scrutiny here and it makes sense for the history at A Million Ways to Die in the West (film) to be merged. Having an unnecessary redirect also isn't necessary, which is why I request this history merge. Rusted AutoParts 21:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... while the discussion has merit, a hist merge is not something I know how to do at this time. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 01:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you get in contact with someone who does? I know a lot of admins, but I'm not sure which have history merge abilities. Rusted AutoParts 03:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe User:DGG. He's been around longer than I, and if he cannot do it he can point you out to someone who could. Ping me so I can learn myself... as WP:HISTMERGE is somewhat confusing. . SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 03:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nor me. I've read the instructions several times, and I've tried several times, and it works about half the time. I get a lot of work done here, but I manage it by doing only what I can figure out how to do correctly. I think someone is likely to show up here by tomorrow and offer do do it. If not , I'll make some suggestions, but I think there may be only a very few people doing these. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A thought... You could post the request over at the talk page of WP:HISTMERGE... OR and maybe better... take a look at that page's history and ask assistance from someone there who has edited that page and apparently has knowledge of how to do it. SCHMIDT, ^{Michael Q.} 01:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANU Southeast Asia Institute

Hi David! Hope you are doing well. I need your help. I'm working through old OTRS tickets, following the recent upgrade. I need to have an article restored in order to verify copyright permission of the content. I generally contact the deleting admin, but it appears as though Yunshui is on a break. Can you step in and help me out? Permission was actually received for the content from the ANU website, however, the permission notice was never applied to the talk page of the article, which would have kept the content from deletion. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Again, hope you are doing well! Cindy(talk) 19:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it. After you have added the notice, it needs some further work.

The work it merits, is speedy deletion as promotional, and I am trying to decide whether to do that, or to change it to a redirect to a single sentence on it in the single paragraph on ANU College of Asia and the Pacific in the article Academic structure of the Australian National University,

That article in turn is long overdue for a merge proposed in 2011 with the main article on the university, and I think I will do that in a few days. Even if rewritten to be non-promotional, it wouldn't make a valid separate article. For that matter, the entire group of articles on ANU is essentially a PR job, or rather an assortment of unintegrated and sometimes inconsistent and out of date PR jobs, that are probably all of them copyvio or paraphrase, Like all such work, the entire assemblage needs to be rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a glance at the article, I agree with you about the current status. I thought the article may end up either being wholly promotional or a duplicate of existing content created after the initial deletion last year. At this point, I've redirected the article as you've suggested. I always let individuals know that while we appreciate the donation of materials, authorization will not allow us to disregard established guidelines or policies, particularly those related to notability and promotional content. I'll let the individual know that the permission has been received, however, the article has been redirected to the Academic structure of the Australian National University due to the promotional nature of the content. I'll suggest that he is welcome to simply add the material to the target article, making sure to let him know that regardless of permission to use the content from the organization's website, we are unable to retain the content as is or within the targeted article, unless the promotional tone is removed. Let me know if you have other ideas or recommendations. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 23:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we agree completely on how to handle these. And it's very frequent--more than half the copyvio I see in organization articles at CSD is G11 also ,and I consequently try to give both reasons, partly in order to head off requests like this. Apart from keeping promotionalism out of WP, It's unfair to those who do not understand WP to have them go through the whole process when it's going to be useless. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of new articles

Hi David. This year's conference was small (and slightly disorganised), but because it was small it was an excellent opportunity to press home some of the issues concerning the quality of new articles - and controlling the quality of the patrollers and reviewers. It was possible to meet and have in-depth discussions with the enablers and developers who (I belive) are now finally aware that these issues should be a Foundation priority. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well, I hope you post some details about who said what, so we can hold them accountable this time next year after they will have done nothing useful,

But actually, it's not their fault, but intrinsic to the current stage of WP: there are three simultaneous factors: 1/ the more people rely on WP, the higher is the demand for quality 2/ the more important WP gets, the harder is to to maintain quality, because everyone will want to use WP for promotion 3/ The longer it is since we started , the earliest people with the most enthusiasm will have moved on to other things and it will no longer be as exciting for those who join now. None of these three factors can be alleviated by anything the foundation does, or that we can do here at WP.

The hope, is that we will get a new generation of editors, who rather than trying to play with something new, are people who want to produce something as useful as they can make it, without the casual attitude the pioneers did about actual quality and freedom from promotionalism. if we can do that, deficiencies of infrastructure will not matter. Good people with the right approach to the right goal can master any system. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, though it is not the quality of new articles that should mainly concern us, but that of old articles. Hope you are all having/had a good time. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeal Wellness Drink

DGG, Please see attached conversation for reference. I do not believe this meets the criteria for deletion, and another admin has also ruled in that favor. Could you please reinstate this? Burkeomatic (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attached Conversation:

I believe this article should be undeleted. It was recently deleted for {G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion} When writing it, I attempted to maintain an impartial tone and remain neutral on the subject by including many studies from the NIH and other scientific communities on the effects of the ingredients, both good and bad. If editing of the content by the site administration is required to remove it from this category, that is acceptable. I am in the nutrition field and have personally spent countless hours researching this supplement for my patients because there was not enough information about it publicly available. Thank you.

Burkeomatic (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference:

Since I seem to be in conflict with another admin, I'm restoring it. I will then give you a few days to add some indication that it's notable enough to have a WP article. This requires references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. I did a quick check, and couldn't find any. There has to be some content besides a list of ingredients. In any case, the information on the safety of them is better given in our articles on them than in one sentence summaries in a page about the drink. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MooshiePorkFace?

Hi DGG, I don't know much about MooshiePorkFace's M.O., but I noticed that Wikipedia:Emmanuel Lemelson apparently deals with the same subject as Emmanuel Gregory Lemelson which was deleted by you as created by a MPF sock. Wikipedia:Emmanuel Lemelson was created by User:JAYRAJ123 in his sandbox and moved (today) into Wikipedia space - by mistake, I assume. In any case, this may or may not indicate that JAYRAJ123 is another MPF sock, and I suspect that you might be able to judge that better than me. It's a user who has made a number of problematic edits, which is why I looked more closely at their article. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 14:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rely on others to determine the socking. for the time being, I moved it to User:JAYRAJ123/Emmanuel Lemelson, but I will follow up. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kliegl Bros. Universal Electric Stage Lighting Co., Inc.

In re "Kliegl Brothers Universal Electric Stage lighting Co., Inc.". Thank you for you comments. I am aware of the article on "Klieglight" to which you refer. Reading it, in fact, was the impetus for writing my submitted article. "Klieglight" is incomplete and in many places inaccurate. Further, a responsible revision based on the title would provide technical data on a particular device. This may well be useful, but does not, except i the narrowest and fragmentary way, address the intent of my article, which is to outline the history of the iconic firm and its impact on the industry.

As for the scope of the article, I felt that it would be most useful to include material on the management and managers as, to a large extent, they were the firm. (For the recor, I am not related to the Kliegls, nor have I contacted one of them in over over 30 years. I was employed there from 1958 to 1969.)

Having said all this in explanation of intent, if portions of the article are unacceptable to Wikipedia for reasons of policy, I would appreciate specific comments that I may make appropriate revisions.

D.W. SaffordDwsafford (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me all the current material on the light would fit very well into your article, and could always be expanded later if someone wanted to do more on the technology--at present it isn't on any more technical a level than yours. I think the article should go under the light, which is overwhelmingly the better known term, which is a criterion we normally use. However, I'm not particularly concerned about it for the moment--articles are easy to move, and this should be discussed, not settled between the two of us. (As for titles, for your present title we would normally drop the Inc. from the end.)

With respect to the article contents itself, the main problem is the reliance upon archival sources. It is expected here that readers are able to check the material in an article, and we normally refer to only published material. (Archives are mentioned, buy putting in an external link or a footnote to the place they are located.). The catalogs are no problem, since I see they are all on the web at http://Www.klieglbros.com/catalogs/catalogs.htm. The personal communications are another matter. There are two ways to use them; best is for someone to publish a conventional book using them, that can then be cited; as an alternative, if they are in public archive and have been summarized properly in detail in a finding aid on he web or in print, that can be cited.

That's what our guidelines are. I didn't write them, but I must tell you what the consensus is about them. Remember also you don't own the article. If someone else should want to merge material and get consensus for it, they can do so. I always think the most important thing is article content and references, and I will be very glad to accept your article when it is properly cited. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kliegl Bros. Universal Electric Stage Lighting Co., Inc.

Thank you. I understand the issue, and will attempt to address it. My difficulty is that some of the material is presently privately held, so I must beg permission to post it on line. If this can be done, I will follow up with you.

Thank you for your help.

David Safford Dwsafford (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mfuzia

Hello DGG. You commented in the ANI thread which is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive807#Fairleigh Dickinson University and PublicMind. You indicated you didn't want to immediately block before the editor had a chance to respond. As it happens, he did give a response in the thread which seems to blow off the whole thing. In my opinion we are now in the territory for admin action under WP:PROMOTION and WP:Disruptive editing. If he continues on his present course, regular editors will have to spend time reverting his inappropriate changes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for following up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Dental of New Jersey

Thank you for your review of my recent article submission. As Delta Dental of New Jersey serves a specific region of the country that no other division of the company serves, and given its achievements as such (outlined in article), I do believe that it is worthy of its own article. If you still disagree, can you please elaborate on what would qualify it as a standalone article? Thanks again. Sgwwiki (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a national company or a national organization, no matter how important, we normally make one article. I see nothing special about this state affiliate or any of the other affiliated local companies, though I gather from the main article they are technically independent. Every one of the plans divisions serves a unique area of the country.

In any case, the afc is inappropriately promotional, talking at great length about charities and other public relations. A Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release.

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients or supporters, or content intended to convince people of your beneficent intentions --that sort of content is considered promotional. It's not impossible to write an article properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.

Additionally, a Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Not a single one of your references does tht. They are either your own press releases or merely document the charitable gifts. . If you have such sources, it may be possible to rewrite the article; otherwise, it will not be possible to write an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Black on Walker's Auctions

Hello again. If you have a moment to ok this entry, I'd appreciate it. I noticed that wikipedia seems to like auction houses. This is Canada's (and the world's) leading auction house for Inuit Art. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HeatherBlack/Walker%27s_Auctions If there is anything I can improve, please let me know.

Re collections for France Jodoin, because the museums don't list collections, I added the "titled" paintings in the gallery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_Jodoin Thanks again for your help! HeatherBlack (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the article on the Auction house is fine--I moved it into mainspace.; major collections have searchable or published holdings, but I think the article is strong enough to hold. As you know, anyone can challenge anything around here.
BTW, I'm very concerned with the paintings on commons. The painter owns the copyright, not you. The photograph of them may be your own work, but the underlying copyright is not. See WP: COPYRIGHT. You might possibly be justified in using one in the English WP under fair use, but commons doesn't accept fair use. I think it quite likely that the illustrations there will be challenged, as well as any others of living artists you have placed there. (If the painter were to donate the copyright, they would have to give us not just permission to use it, but to release the copyright permanently under a CC 3.0 ATT-SA license for anyone to copy and reuse. Few painters are willing to do that. Copyright is one of the things we are most cautious about. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving the Walker's Auction into the mainspace. Re the images, I did think that the copyright applied to the photograph of the painting and not the painting. So I will check the CC 3.0 ATT-SA licence and if necessary remove the images. Thanks for the note.

Hello again. I noticed that the "unreviewed" tag was put on. Does that mean I should ask someone at the Teahouse to have a look at it? Thanks again. I'll get the hang of this eventually! HeatherBlack (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the tag was put on by a program that is apparently not smart enough to realize that it was not you who moved your own article to mainspace, but me. I removed it. One of the difficulties in doing things here (or anywhere else in the world) is programs which do the wrong things, and, for that matter, people who do the wrong things, But WP is particularly susceptible to it for the procedures here are a multi-layer collection of systems implemented over the years, with a result that is unclear, confusing, and sometimes contradictory. About half of what is written down is superseded or not consistently applied, or irrelevant nit-picking, and the unwritten way they are implemented are subject to variable interpretation, (again, just like the rest of the world.) Fortunately, there are hundreds of people here who understand at least the part of the system they work with and are willing to help. (Once again, just like the rest of the world, though I think we have a relatively higher degree of competence than in most complicated systems I've worked in or otherwise encountered.) DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Docker (Linux container engine)

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Docker (Linux container engine), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ged UK 20:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I'll look at it again. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Del of interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth A. Bollen: btw, I am curious if Echo gave you a ping when I mentioned you there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it did. But I hadn't checked Echo today, It's not as if it were some sufficiently visual obnoxious banner that you can't ignore it. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K :) Btw, did you mean we have a category for ISI_Highly_Cited people? I can't find it - if we do can you add it to Bollen's article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's Category:ISI highly cited researchers I've added it. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A1

Would [3] qualify as csd a1? Surfer43 03:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

certainly not. It gives the accepted name, the chemical structure, the PubChem ID -- a standard reliable widely used database from the NIH, and a reliable source from a major peer-reviewed journal. It's probably notable, because I think there are other references to it also. It's a very minimal stub, but there is good consensus that we do not necessarily delete minimal stubs just for being minimal--it's been discussed many times in the archives of WT:CSD. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MIchael L Tushman

Hi DDG,

I'm new to Wikipedia article creation, so please forgive my ignorance. I'm attempting to create a page for Michael Tushman, a named professor at Harvard Business School. Apparently, I've inadvertently infringed copyright somehow--you referenced (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of his web site), although I'm not sure how I did this.

I was under the impression that my "sandbox" was a place for my drafts, so I could go back and make appropriate adjustments. It seems you've deleted my draft due to aforementioned copyright infringement. Could you help me understand what next steps I need to take in order to get this article approved? Do I need to start from scratch? Would you be able to tell me how I infringed the copyright in the first place so I avoid doing that in the future? Any help you could give me would be much appreciated.

Many thanks in advance, Tamraconteur Tamraconteur (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You have to write articles in your own words. You're not allowed to copy and paste, or even closely paraphrase, existing sources. This applies even in sandboxes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you will need to start over. I gave you some suggestions for how to organize the article. Obviously, some short phrases will necessarily be the same, but the organization as well as the wording should be different.

I need to apologize again for the totally erroneous help you were given by two fairly experienced editors. A named professorship at a major university is a sufficient evidence of notability according to criterion 5 of WP:PROF. Nobody should be reviewing articles on a subject who does not understand the relevant guidelines, be willing to apply them according to established consensus, and pay sufficient attention to the article to know when they are relevant. Equally, nobody should be reviewing articles who does not take the trouble to check for copyright when they see a formally written biographical article. But anyone can make an occasional error. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Prince Charlie: A Tale of Fontenoy and Culloden‎

Hello, thank you for looking into this matter. Well, it's not my article but it was only a stub before I spent a lot of time on expanding it and little later it was at least rated as start-class. I consider this novel interesting because it explains why nowadays the majority of Scots seem to like the English better than their former allies, the French. This book might even have influenced this change. Since its author is notable this novel might serve as an example of his oeuvre as well as any other novel. However, I appreciate a discussion on whether this novel is fit to serve as an example. Yet I was surprised when I read that this article ought to be deleted because of my contributions. I don't think my contributions were the actual problem. Thank you for looking into this matter. Nordhorner II (talk I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 20:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People -- even good people -- judge articles here by quick impressions. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jagger Eaton DRV

While temp undeletion during a DRV is common, I don't think you should have done so in this case. Subject is a child and the 3rd link listed as a reference gives personal contact info including a link to his Facebook page. Since we tend to be very careful about contact info for minors for legal reasons I don't think undeleting this even temporarily was a good move. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general i would agree with you, but it can be a problem with athletes or performers at this age. In this case it's not a private facebook page in the usual sense: it's his own publicity, & considering the sponsorships, his parents must know & approve of what he's doing & posting. It's a matte of judgment, and if you want to hide it again, do & say you're doing it with my agreement. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick S. Jaffe article

Thank you for reviewing my article. One question: you deleted a section I titled "Accolades" containing remarks made in the Congressional Record upon Jaffe's death as "inappropriate". What would be a better way of including those remarks in the article?

DaveJaffe (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Remarks published in the Congressional Record are notoriously not reliable sources and thus cannot be cited here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that was a tribute to him made in congress. There are surely ones in reliable sources. There should also be reviews of his books. There should also be reliable editorial obits in major sources. There's a lot to add. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning reference to unpublished sources

Dear DGG,

Thank you very much for your remarks. This is the first paper which I wrote for Wikipedia.org (I recently started writing on Wikipedia.fr on Burmese monuments, my main field of research for the moment): I usually publish scientific papers & books in English although my mothertongue is French, but all publications, inclusive the one on Oertel -specifically written for Wikipedia, hence not published anywhere else- are always read and corrected by a native speaker.

Would it be possible for me to quote the relevant passages from the letters in the text? This would then mean that they are getting published.

Many thanks again, Utpala-Padma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padma-Utpala (talk • contribs) 08:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we don't do that. How could anyone verify it.? (That's the accepted interpretation at enWP of WP:Verifiability; other WPs may possibly do it a little differently.) The alternative is for them to placed in a formal archive somewhere, & described briefly in their finding aids. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai World Central

You assume, in error, that I haven't looked for sources. I was unable to find independent RS. I also don't speak any of the native languages, which may be a factor.

Since you mentioned it, there is also some discussion elsewhere (such as at WT:N regarding the notability of such construction projects. I do not deny that they can be notable, but I feel like the application of building notability standards to construction projects is an error. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to predict what the consensus will be at AfD. But that's the place for the discussion, not trying to do it by speedy or prod. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During previous periods when I was nominating significant numbers of articles at AfD I was encouraged to use CSD and PRODs where appropriate, rather than making lots of work and increasing the backlog at AfD. Can't please everyone. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge versus redirect

Thanks for providing your perspective at Deletion review. I remain of the opinion that AfD closes should reflect consensus in discussions as accurately as possible. Doing otherwise creates many slippery slopes.

Perhaps editors should be forewarned that if they !vote to merge at AfD discussions, and even when the consensus is to clearly, or even unanimously to merge (e.g. unanimous merge consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Congo in Ottawa), the closer may just close the discussion as redirect instead. No merge tags on articles, inaccurate "redirect" results listed at AfD stats for what should be merge closes, etc. ultimately degrades the intellectual integrity of the encyclopedia, in my opinion. This seems very basic to me.

In the future, perhaps I'll word my merge !votes as "Merge: but since this may simply be redirected (even if everyone in the discussion says merge, please discount this !vote and go along with any WP:SUPERVOTE that occurs instead."

What's wrong with this picture ~~(below)?~~: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Congo in Ottawa

The answer: Consensus here certainly wasn't to simply redirect, not by a long shot. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish me to revisit a discussion, simply ask me to, but the argument belongs at the discussion, not my talk page. Perhaps you did not fully understand my suggestion there, which was to simply merge yourself what you thought was necessary, as the closer very properly suggested. Good editing is generally more effective than argument. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing; perhaps I overreached. The librarian in me wants to keep data as accurate as possible for the public. Thanks for the advice, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested

You're considered a sort of "zen master" of scholarly journals and the like. Would you like to comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture--if possible? Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

declined A7 speedy deletion of Search Engine People

I did a detailed analysis of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airomo which, together with KDS4444's latest comment in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Search_Engine_People, should explain why, apart from the Toronto Star, all the sources used in Search Engine People are dubious. —rybec 22:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

certainly they are dubious, but even a totally unsourced claim of significance defeats an a7. The AfD will remove it soon enough. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Titia Ex

Hi DDG,

I worked on Titia Ex' wiki page, and following your advice I skimmed through the sources, updated them. I actually took a good number of sources out (not all, but most), while leaving the information (please let me know if the information must then also be removed or can be left without reference). I know you have said Titia Ex is recognized enough to receive a wiki page. So I am feeling good about this. Also, Titia is mentioned in a good number of wiki pages with other artists but is not 'wiki-highlighted', for instance on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Art_Biennale_Austria_2010 .

Thank you for guiding me diligently. I hope the remaining issues will be taken care of by other fans and supporters of Titia's work. The page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Titia_Ex_%282nd_copy%29

Fredrick FredrickS (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can be left without reference in a biography of a living person. In particular, each individual exhibition must be referenced. There's a good deal of cleanup necessary in the article, and I need to get to it before I approve it. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Perez (blogger)

Hello DGG! I am the one who created this article that you are now considering for deletion, may I appeal your decision to recommend this page for deletion because the subject is indeed gaining prominence in my country today. Also, wiki has allowed subjects who have lesser stature to be published with less, or even without public following: eg:

1. Florentino Floro 2. Louie Jon Agustin Sanchez 3. Bryanboy 4. Rodne Galicha

...and more.

As of now, in my research, the subject has 250,000 followers and half a million readers^[1] and it maybe a minor celebrity by North American standards but it is already big by Philippine standards. Further research that the subject has followers from outside the Philippines as well on a big number. I agree that " WP is NOT A TABLOID. There's a limit to the triviality we cover, and nobody can become notable by publishing something not remotely worth our inclusion." But the subject is beyond the criteria of triviality by WP, as proven by the approval of people wikis cited above by the editors of WP.

Also, the "very minor celebrity" Janine Tugonon that the subject wrote about was the Miss Universe 2012 first runner-up and was considered a Filipino heroine (until her recent bad press)who has her won wiki page therefore is considered not a "very minor celebrity." Considering her as a "very minor celebrity" is an encyclopedic bias against Filipinos. But also, the subject gained prominence again when he wrote about the Filipino migrant worker abuses in the Philippines-Taiwan rift, which in no way is a very minor issue.

Consider this, like the people wiki articles I cited above, you have an entry about Danny Sillada who like the subject gained instant prominence in a one-time event. However, his work of art was seen by relatively few people (and awareness that goes with it) vs. the work the subject did. Does that mean WP considers the art of blogging a lesser form of art than painting? Since more has seen subject's work rather than Sillada's, isn't notability more in the subject's favor?

Or we can consider this article a stub in the meantime, which is okay too.

Please consider my appeal sir, thank you very much! I am pushing for this because I am confident the subject is gaining notability and is worthy of an encyclopedic entry like those people mentioned above. killerdork ( talk ) 20:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)21:39, 19 August 2013[reply]

there are many articles in WP that ought to be deleted; the first step is not adding additional ones. As for the merits of this particular article its not be you have to convince, but whoever responds at the afd: the community opinion decides, and it will be another admin who decides the consensus. If you convince people to keep the article, it will be kept. I point out that "gaining notability" is usually interpreted as not yet notable. And you might want to read WP:BLP1E-- I personally think that rationale is much over-used, and I didn't use it here, but others will. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you sir! However, the subject was notable more than once. I read WP:BLP1E and I believe my subject passed the requirement because he didn't have just one instance to fame: Instance #1 was about he article about Janine Tugonon, and instance #2 is the other article about Taiwan, which is one month apart. The 3rd instance is he won Globe Tatt Awards, (big social media award). All verifiable and cited on the article. Also, may I quote #2 of WP:ENT, subject already has 250,000 readers as manifested by the screenshot of Wordpress and Almost 600,000 readers. Bloggers are opinion makers. So, let me rephrase what I said before, my subject is "notable and gaining more notability." I'm just hoping that I can convince you so that you can withdraw your nomination for deletion like what other editors did to other articles and spare me the heartbreak of having my first wiki article shot down. Thanks sir! by killerdork ( talk ) 23:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you are right, my nomination for deletion will not be supported and the article will be kept. I only nominated it, I am not judging it. Whatever judgment is made, I accept. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay sir. But may I ask, since I am new here. I am afraid that maybe most editors are not from the Philippines and I am thinking any non-Filipino will not appreciate the merits of the facts. So, as an innocent question, does an article need to have international coverage to be appreciated here in WP? If not, then how can non-locals of that particular country see and appreciate the validity of the article? I hope you understand where I am coming from. I mean we Filipinos use WP as well, and what we need as information may be considered as minor by a non-Filipino, and vice-versa. Case in point, one of the editors there already dismissed my sources as "fringe media" which I find offensive because those are the biggest networks in the country. Is he saying it's "fringe" because maybe he's comparing it say, to CNN or MSNBC? I hope you understand where I am coming from. It's just sad that the article that I researched for 8 hours worth of work is undergoing this. killerdork ( talk ) 00:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with many things at WP, the need for international coverage depends on the subject. For matters involving news events and celebrities, we often do ask for it.But we also recognize that each country has its own entertainment industry, and its own politics, and its own media , and many things will only be notable in one country. WP covers the world, and international notability is not necessarily required. Our standards, however, are the same no matter what country. In every country, the major media contain a good deal of material that we consider marginal. We're an encyclopedia, not focusing on things of temporary importance to mass media. It is precisely because I am not a Filipino that I do not want to judge the notability of topics that look like they might take national knowledge, and I therefore rely on the judgment of others. If I have made a gross error, multiple people will tell me, and I will learn from it.

This is a strange place, and it takes a while for newcomers to learn it. We have many rules: perhaps far too many. But we also have many exceptions, and the way we apply the rules depends on the community judgement of each individual issue. This can result in a considerable degree of inconsistency, which is unfortunate, but the alternative is to have fixed exact rules for everything; but not only are the possible situations and topics too varied for that, but the spirit of things here has a large component of anarchy and idiosyncrasy. it's hard to predict.

As an administrator, I have some responsibilities, but I know my limitations, and I try to do things very carefully, I can delete articles, but I delete only those which are uncontroversially impossible for an encyclopedia, and where I think everyone who understands WP would agree to delete them. Everything else, I rely on the advice and decisions of people in general. I call things I think might be problems to general attention, and give a preliminary opinion, and then I let the discussion take place: by no means every thing I propose for deletion gets deleted--sometimes I misunderstand, sometimes the general view is simply different from my own. My knowledge of things in the world I did not previously know increases ever day I work here. As for the article, if it is kept, it will be a stronger article for the discussion. If not, you will learn how to make a better one in the future. Not every article I wrote at the beginning was accepted, and that's true for almost everybody here. Don't be discouraged, DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally, I look ed at the other article you mentioned: Floro was an important public official; Sanchez has what seem to be major awards; Bryanboy has significant international coverage; Galichia I have some doubts about--whether or not he is notable , the article is promotional and I need to consider whether or not it is fixable. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sir, I humbly submit. Killerdork (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boundless (company) and Inkling

Hi - I need some help. I've written two articles about start up companies in the textbook market. They are young companies in a market that is being disrupted by technology and (to some extent) social change. In order to describe the companies and their impact, I felt it was necessary to describe their products. The technical nature of the products in this space is key to understanding why the market is rapidly changing. The Boundless article has been flagged as being an advertisement, and the Inkling article is flagged for speedy deletion. This feedback is important, but it is not specific enough to help me improve the articles. Can you help me with specific examples of advertising, promotion, or inappropriate links? Otherwise, I'm just guessing, and I could easily guess wrong.

One problem I face is that information about these companies comes from press sources that cover new technology and start ups, and there's definitely a "gee whiz" factor in those articles. I have tried to extract the facts from the enthusiasm, but for young companies there are not many alternative sources I can use. Also, information about growth of these companies is difficult to extract (as they are not public companies). For example, I can see how this sentence from the Boundless article sounds promotional (and may in fact need to be deleted): "In January 2013, the company claimed that students at over 2000 colleges in the United States were using Boundless textbooks." I included it because I had few sources to show the growth of the company. I was careful to note that this was a "claim," and attribute it. The information contained there is not complete, but without it, the article has less information about the scale or growth of the company. I debated almost every sentence in each of the two articles, and deleted more content than I kept.

Long story short, I appreciate any specific advice or examples. Seeing those advertisement & speedy deletion flags was a terrible feeling. I want to fix this and not have this experience again with future contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right-- I was too hasty. I did some editing on the Boundless article, mainly to decrease use of the company name, and removed the promotional tag; I removed the speedy tag from the Inkling article, and am about to review it to see if I can improve it. I did make a clear error, and in compensation I will try to do some positive work.

The problem is that WP is under siege from promotional editors for organizations, including , ironically, organizations aligned with open source material. There has developed a certain tendency to shoot first, and ask questions afterwards. Fortunately, we have some checks: admins rarely delete an article single handed except in the most outrageous cases, but list it for confirmation by another admin. In the 9 hours after I listed this one, no other admin deleted it, although many other articles were deleted. If it had continued a few hours longer, as seems likely, I would have noticed it myself and thought again. You will see above that other people sometimes decline my deletion nominations, and I decline some also from even the most reliable editors. We are all of us imperfect, and almost all of us know it.

Looking again at the Inkling article, I see what I had spotted: sentences of the pattern "While doing whatever, X saw the need for something" are very often characteristic of promotional paid editors, in particular a particular ring of low-paid editors that has inserted several thousand unworthy articles over the last year or two that we are slowly removing. Unfortunately, there is so much promotion not just in WP but the world, that people have come to naturally write in a promotional manner.

The problem of sourcing for new things is a difficult one. For new things that get hype, and that seems to include these two companies, there are usually sources; for the less spectacular one that appeal less to news media, it can be very difficult or impossible. The sourcing for Boundless is fully adequate by our usual standards. The sourcing for Inkling uses some acceptable sources, but also uses Businesswire, a blatant medium for promotion that prints essentially anything a PR agent sends it.

An article about a company , new or old,should describe its major products. There is a difference between describing and promoting. The way I word the difference is that an encyclopedic article tells the reader what the reader might want to know, while a promotional article tells what the company wants the reader to know. Obviously, to some extent a good article on a good product can have a secondary promotional effect, but it can often be told apart by such features as the freedom from adjectives.

What is really wanted for this type of article is full nonpartisan product reviews from trusted sources, and they should be forthcoming. If I can help you further, please ask me. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed! I think that this is a very beneficial discussion to have, and only in the very broadest sense a "mistake." Clearly, the articles were written in a way that they could be mistaken for promotion - that's an issue and I'm glad you raised it. About mistakes - they do happen, but many people can't admit that. They become defensive and argumentative. You took exactly the opposite path. I'm impressed, and I sincerely appreciate it. And you are completely right about how people tend to write in a promotional manner. I do tend to do that, but I'm consciously trying to do better.

Regarding BusinessWire - I see your point. I have my notes from the article, which includes ~30 sources, including several from the time of the press release. If there's any information that is not already supported by other references, I will find a solid reference or delete the information. (done)

Regarding nonpartisan product reviews - I have a Google alert for these companies, but I'm not sure what constitutes a nonpartisan review or a trusted source. For example, I found this: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15424065.2012.762213?af=R&#.UhQT-ZK1Fc4. Is this fair game, or would citing this be considered primary research? The abstract fairly gushes with praise - can it be considered nonpartisan?

Regarding the plague of promotional content, how can I help with that? For example, during my research for these two articles, I came across the page for Kno, another company in this space. In its current form, it consists largely of text copied from the Kno web site, and includes sentences like "Each Kno eTextbook is packed with interactive features ..." The current text was apparently added by a Kno employee. I would be glad to work on the Kno page - how should I begin? I'm thinking of rolling the page back to the 16 June 2012 version, and then adding some more information from recent & reputable sources. Does that make sense? Also, to minimize debate, would it be good for an administrator to do the roll back or to mark the current version as promotional in nature?

Thanks again, amigo. I appreciate your attitude and what you're doing - all of this is new to me, but I fell like I'm part of something important here.James Cage (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more - Thank you for your help with Boundless. I would like to discuss one change, which I think is important to users, and to understanding why the company was sued. I put some discussion on the article's talk page - is this the right way to go? Thanks again James Cage (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that review you mention is the sort of thing that is wanted-- even if it turns out the author has connections with the company, it's still a peer-reviewed journal. . I don't think I've seen an article on either company in the Chronicle of Higher Education yet, but I would expect to. I'll keep an eye out for others. For kno, some of the material in the history section is usable and updates the article in significant ways, so it is better toy edit to remove what isn't appropriate. Just as you say, doing drastic removal like that might run into some problems if done by a relatively new editor, so I've done the first round myself, and you can clean up further--probably some refs should be removed, and it would be helpful to have a good ref on no. of titles and major publishers. I blocked the promotional editor and dealt with an article of his on the company founder. (sometimes there is good reason for drastic action by an admin). If the ed. reappears under another name it will be obvious--let me know, or list it at WP:COIN, the conflict of interest noticeboard. It would not surprise me if similar attention will have to be paid to articles on other firms in this industry. I look forward to our further cooperation in this. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (opera)

Not really clear why this should not go up as is - separate page from the story? Why do I need to wait for reviews? I can add articles in the coming months after they run in various publications (I already added a big piece that ran in El Pais/Spain). Hope I have put this in the right forum as I have not done that much wiki writing. Hstokar (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to mainspace--see your user talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Hartford Foundation

Hello DGG, I noticed you went through this new article and did quite a few edits. Nice cleanup overall, and I appreciate that different editors have different styles, but some of these edits seem to err on the side of minimalism for reasons that are not entirely apparent to me. E.g., in an article on a large organization, do you not think that even a starter section on governance is warranted? Thanks :) Anomicworld (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the only part I completely removed was a statement that, like all US foundations, it had to spend 5% of its assets each year. But I have some questions about the inconsistent information in the sources & the prior article; they gave two different years for changes in foundation policy: one to decrease emphasis of grants for research 30 years ago, and a change in 2012 to do essentially the same thing. I tried to harmonize them, but did not succeed--see the last sentence in history and the first in activities. And I have not yet finished removed extraneous promotional material. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Feiden Galleries, redux

Hi DGG, I'm dropping a note to you, given your helpful input at ANI last month [4] and my disinclination to open a new thread there. To the point, I'm asking whether you believe the more recent discussions and edits that I've commented on here [5] merit further discussion. My take is that promotion is still the guiding force, and wonder if the voluminous discussions of July had any real impact. Thanks in advance and best wishes, JNW (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get there in a day or two

Article Deletion: Zopim

Thanks for your comprehensive response. I will have another stab at doing a better job. I thought my changes would be sufficient, but thanks for pointing out the issues and how they can be solved. Since it has been deleted, if I make changes what is the appropriate forum for someone to have another look at it? Abhiroopb (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Is it possible to recover the text for the deleted article? I want to use it as a reference. I have some of it, but not all. Abhiroopb (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have everything needed in the AfC you started, buyt I will email you the deleted article. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nallatech

Very surprised at you nominating an article for deletion without checking google books, it easily meet GNG. Scottish Equity Partners too has 1500 hits in books/magazines. For somebody who is generally a strong inclusionist I've noticed that you are rather less inclined to support articles on companies, even though they have extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. This sort of article isn't my cup of tea either but I would never claim something that has that number of hits to be "non notable", IDON'TLIKEIT more like.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was getting a little impatient. I withdrew the nom of Nallatech. SEP I'm not sure of--I don;t know how to evaluate routine listings that a company invested in something. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Kuykendall (2nd nomination)

Hey DGG - I've gone ahead and relisted the Justin Kuykendall article at AFD, using your original rationale. Mark Arsten (the deleting admin) confirms that he did not intend to delete this article (since it was merged too late), so I undid my deletion. It's cleaner just to do a new debate, so I did that - but left a note for the editor who closed your original as well. So, yeah, that happened. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khlaq 2nd opinion

Am i wrong in thinking this is more than a dicdef? It seems to me it needs expansion, not deletion. I declined the CSD. Now it is Prodded. Dloh cierekim 13:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it needs to be expanded substantially, not deleted, but someone must do it if it is to be kept. (and in this case I think a good deal of explanation might be needed about usage before it is even an adequate dicdef). Almost any dicdef of a common noun can potentially be expanded into an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

professionals - notice of discussion

Hi,

As a librarian you may be interested in this deletion proposal: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_22#Professionals. Regards, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

commented. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

You have been (indirectly) mentioned here: Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Notability_is_defined_entirely_by_presence_of_reliable_sources.22.3F.3F.3F_-_Reply_to_Bearcat (I know you are busy - so I am pointing you to the middle of this very long text). XOttawahitech (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually, it's the whole general question I find of interest, & therefore I commented at considerable length myself DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Gert Wiescher

Hello DGG: I have removed references 2,5,6 and 7, however I think the link to the Klingspor Museum (ref 5) should be listed as an external link as it provides a comprehensive catalogue of his typefaces. I am no longer sure when I first accessed these websites (which date I should insert), and please explain "webcite" to me. The first external link is, indeed, his web site. The other links you mentioned, I have removed. The BAM-portal link I have entered directly, it works now. I have changed the quotation marks. As to the error, I am waiting for feedback from the subject on this. I have not re-submitted the article. Please have a look at my changes and let me know what you think. Sincerely yours, Geoffrey KlineGeoffrey Kline (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have changed the text as you suggested and have re-submitted the article. I realise this is going to take a long time. All the best,Geoffrey Kline (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some rewriting for conciseness--it was easier to do that to explain. It still needs a ref. for the bio. A ref from his own publication is OK for this. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hi, DGG! I am out of retirement and my user page has an explanation; anyway, we have user with a user talk User talk:I Will Blow Yer House Down!!; would that Wikipedia appropriate? Ashbeckjonathan 23:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The username isn't the problem, as much as the nature of their edits. I think they should have been blocked, not warned, but it's back in 2006, & the ed has done nothing since then, so usual practice is to ignore it. How on earth did you happen to come across this? BTW, you need to explain on your earlier userpage name user page that you're back as the original name. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm just making sure. I'll just ignore it. Ashbeckjonathan 00:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is my explanation; I went to WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 in June, somewhere around Mid-June about a week before camp, because I was having a rough time as my account as Ashbeckjonathan because many of my original articles were considered for deletion, such as Frank Forte you nominated and proposed deletions on other articles, so I decided to retire and then later I went to WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 for a clean start and gave up my current account as Ashbeckjonathan which I was told to disclose my information first in which I had no idea what it meant. Eventually I did so and I stayed as WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 for a whiule until last week in which I was having some problems and I gave up that and went to IP editing before returning to my original account again. So that should be a good explanation, although I don't edit much now since I am listening and watching videos on YouTube or looking up other stuff on Wikipedia such as baptism, Holy Communion, Open communion, closed communion, and stuff like that. Ashbeckjonathan 00:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, while was under WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844, I was told that I might get accused of sock puppetry, and I was trying to avoid that. Ashbeckjonathan 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Help Defining non notable company

First off, thanks for engaging in the conversation about Logic Supply. I thought I would take it "off line" from the entry in question and loop back with you here. Basically I am trying to gauge what qualifies as a Non Notable, while at the same time trying to make a useful entry for the community. You have a sizable amount of experience, so if you could help me understand your sense of it, that would be awesome. Thanks so much! --John.Donoghue (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that there's anything that makes a company non-notable; rather, there have to be factors that make a company notable. The basic standard is that the company multiple references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. The qualifying terms in that phrase is where the problems lie, and they are explained in considerable detail at WP:CORPDEPTH. Basically, the ones that work best are major reviews in well-known unbiased sources. You may indeed have them, and I commented so at the afd--if others support their importance, I'll withdraw the afd. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Dgoodman15

For some weird reason, the following message has twice been blocked by an edit filter as a "personal attack". I am posting it here on behalf of its would-be author who was thwarted by the edit filter. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hi David,

Thank you for your thoughtful and purposeful work to improve the Wikipedia environment. As an end user, it is people like yourself that ensure the accuracy and reliability of this information resource. I am an administrator of "Schulich Leader Scholarships" and a 'newbie' Wikipedia page administrator. How can I learn the ropes to ensure our program can begin to document the lives touched by our scholarship in Canada and Israel? Please tell me how I can avoid deletion in the future, based on your previous assessment of our page: (05:06, 17 March 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Schulich Leader Scholarships (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://schulichleaders.com/about-scholarship).

Best regards, Dgoodman15 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Although the request in and of itself sounds reasonable, there are a couple of issues that probably should be addressed: The admitted COI, and a possible infringement of this section of the usernames policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dgoodman15, your entire purpose is wrong for WP. WP does not exist for you to document your program, and certainly not to document "the lives touched by our scholarships". It exists for the general public who may want information on your program. A page mostly copied from your own web site doesn't do that. Besides being a copyright violation,it says things in the way you want people to see them, and is almost always unsuitable even if you give permission.

You need to describe the program , without using superlatives or adjectives, demonstrating it' notability with references to major news sources not based or copies of your own PR, Don;t direct it to prospective schools or universities or students who may want to participate. Don't explain its benefits, just say what it is. Certainly don't give a list of the students who received awards--that information belongs if anywhere on your web page, & it's there complete with photographs of even the hundreds of finalists who did not get the award. And describe things properly: this is an undergraduate scholarship, not a postgraduate fellowship like the Rhodes. ::Don't be extravagant in what you say: The degree to which it has made an impact on the world is largely prospective--this is just the second year of operation, and no lives can yet have been touched beyond having their first year university expenses paid. Remember, that to to the extent it does have an impact of the world, other people will write about it.

See our general guides to writing articles, WP:PLAIN and WP:FIRST; see also our list of the things we don't do here, WP:NOT, and our practical guide to conflict of interest, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Also note, Dgoodman15, that you are not "a Wikipedia page administrator": there are no such beasts. Nobody "owns" or "administers" a particular article in Wikipedia (these are encyclopedia articles, by the way, not MySpace or LinkedIn "pages"; the difference is revelatory). Instead, all of us here are mutually pledged to improve existing articles in ways that follow our "Five Pillars", regardless of our own personal ties and self-interest. Some of us have been entrusted by the community as a whole, after a rather intensive grilling process, with the Mop-and-Bucket of administrator status; the regalia keeps us humble, reminding us that we are merely glorified janitors, with a few more keys and tools than other editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fool yourself, Mike: there are certainly "Wikipedia page administrators". I can't imagine a large consumer company that wouldn't have someone in its marketing department that is specifically given the task of monitoring relevant Wikipedia pages. We don't recognise the role and make active efforts to ensure that such people don't actually gain control of the pages, but such people certainly exist.—Kww(talk) 22:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we refuse to legitimate or approve such behavior, and quash it where we can; we recognize no kingpins or capi di tuti capi, and fight to uproot them where we can. It has even been suggested that in some countries (not the U.S.) such actions by corporate tools may be illegal. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OM, this is getting a little exaggerated. We have an editor coming here using what is apparently his true name, saying he represents an organization, and asking for help writing an acceptable page on it. The organization is clearly notable--there are substantial reliable news sources for it in Canada and Israel. He deserves to be permitted to make another try, now that things are clarified for him--indeed, people should be encouraged to do that. If he doesn't succeed, the organization is notable enough that I might write the page myself; if we had enough people interested in writing on higher education, it should have been done previously. He may or may not understand he doesn't control the page, but that is easy enough to explain. When I consider all the illegitimate & incompetent paid editing on non-notable or barely notable topics being submitter to WP by rings of puppets, hundreds of which we've been deleting each month, it's good to have someone coming in up front and saying what he's trying to do. We admins are here both to keep the improper stuff out of WP (as I did, in deleting the copyvio & promotional article submitted), and to use our experience in helping people do it right. I consider it my responsibility to "legitimate and approve"--and encourage and support anyone who comes to me honestly and asks for help, as long as they then don't go making problems (if they do , I deal with them--I block about 1% as often as you, but I certainly block when nothing else serves). What's illegal in some countries is doing it under false names. Our policies, of course, have the effect of making doing it illegitimately extremely easy, and it's absurd and counterproductive for us to make it harder being honest. The German WP accepts verified organization role accounts, to keep them under control. I think we should also. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a related issue, in my opinion probably the single silliest thing that many Wikipedia administrators do is to block an account because its username is the name of a company, telling the user that the username is the only reason for the block, and they are welcome to open an account that doesn't show the company connection. Whether we like it or not, there are, and always will be, accounts set up ion order to edit on behalf of businesses. How does it help to positively encourage businesses to run such accounts stealthily, hiding the nature of the account? If an account is persistently used in unacceptable ways, such as for posting spam, then it should not be allowed to edit under any username, and if it isn't being used in unacceptable ways, then far better that it openly declares its nature in its username than that it hide behind an apparently neutral name. Personally, I never block an account just because its username shows that it is a role account, in the absence of problematic editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If you want to make the proposal, I'll support it. ~ 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk)

Opinion

Dear Sir. Long time no greetings! Thanks in advance for your view on this [6]Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we have always accepted an entry in Gale's Contemporary Literary Criticism & their similar series as notability , even if they call a figure minor. The article is in need of some cutting, which I will do tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I guess I'm missing something, because he's not coming up on Gale, and mentions in NYT, etc. are not substantial. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will double check that, probably tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, thank ye in advance.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD of synagogue

Hi DGG: What is your learned opinion regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun Synagogue? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

commented there--the most practical thing might be to merge it. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten Article

I made my first stab at writing a Wikipedia article a few months back under the username tkyne (I've since then lost my login information), and my article was, understandably, quickly deleted. I've reworked the article to include external sources and links. I also put in my own words that I'd taken straight from other websites. My new article is now in the articles for creation section, but I don't know how long it may be there for, unnoticed. If possible, I'd like to get it up sooner.

I returned to Article Wizard to try directly creating the article myself. At the the top of the page, it says, "A page with this title has already been deleted" and recommends that I contact the deleting administrator. I wasn't sure how else I was supposed to contact you, so I apologize if this wasn't the right medium. I'd really appreciate it if I could get some advice on how I should proceed or if it would be appropriate for me to directly create this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleca (talk • contribs) 07:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a note on their user talk page. just as you are doing, is usually the best way of asking anybody a question. Most of us who are involved with any particular part of WP are very pleased to answer questions about what we know, and any user who comments on an AfC should be willing--if not positively eager--to explain further. (the other route is to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.

With respect to the article you have been working on, I must advise you that a student club at a single university is almost never a suitable subject for a WP article, except for a very few famous clubs. Similarly, a local branch of a national or international association is almost never a subject for an article. There are exceptional situations, such as very widespread coverage by national or international reliable sources, but they are rare. I do not see that your group is likely to be one of the exceptions. Essentially all the references to the specific work of the group are from the Dartmouth Engineer , your college's own newspaper, The exception is the item in Scientific American. But it's a blog written by your own group, not an article about your group written by others; and Scientific American specifically states it has no editorial control over the material.

I do not want to discourage you, but to urge you to continue to contribute. If you want to write on Dartmouth-related topics, the most likely thing to do is to write articles on individual notable faculty at your college holding endowed or distinguished professorships. And we are lacking in articles on 95% of the members of the National Academy of Engineering. If you want to write specifically on material relating to Tanzania, you might want to start of build up the articles on specific Tanzanian institutions--colleges, government departments, research stations--anything for which you can find one or two good published sources. We are very weak in our coverage of African topics, and your help here would make a very important contribution. And if you learn enough Swahili, there's a very great need to translate article from the English WP to the Swahili Wikipedia.

If I can help you further, just ask me here. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very helpful feedback. In the future, I'll work to contribute to Wikipedia in any way that I can and perhaps revisit this specific topic if and when it does gain notability! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleca (talk • contribs) 08:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of EDP Energias do Brasil

Hi, DGG. I agree that the reason for deleted (creation by sock) is valid and serious. However, I have understandings that this is usually used for newly created articles, not for articles which have been for years and have been edited by number of other editors. Is there any other reason for deletion in addition to G5? The company itself is notable, so maybe you could restore the last version to my user space and I will clean it up before recreating? The problem with Edson Rosa's socks is that if we delete all articles what they have created, we should delete most of articles about Brazilian companies (and also some others from other countries). And it is impossible to stop his current editing as he uses dynamic IP from the Sao Paolo region. Beagel (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that is a consideration, but it should also be weighed against rewarding socks. If they know that the articles they create will remain, no matter how they create them, we keep the incentive for others to pay socks to continue to do this and it is getting way out of hand Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277--I am One of Many (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's not impossible to stop the current editing. If we manage to remove all the articles now present, and continue to remove them as they get submitted, then there will be no incentive for that editor to continue. It's the only defense we have. (I did not previously think this way, but the problems we have now been finding are so severe, that they threaten the objectivity of the encyclopedia, and it's time for emergency measures. I agree there's a problem about removing such a large body of content, and the articles should be rewritten. Perhaps the time to rewrite them will be a little while in the future, once we get this editor to stop--and to rewrite them without any of their work in the edit history. I can certainly make the material available to use the references as a base for such rewriting, but perhaps it would be wise to wait. I see only one alternative solution, which is to require identification from editors, and that is such as drastic change in our principles that it is not yet time to propose it. It would be a serious compromise in our mission, but it's a better alternative than permitting promotional editing. We would lose truly open editing, but we'd still have an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note: I have come to re-evaluate the question of the articles by this particular editor. They seem for the most part unequivocally useful, and often just what we would do ourselves if we were adding content on these topics. I'm unsure how to handle this, and my opinion varies. Some other sockfarms have been very different, with promotional articles on sub-notable companies. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CCC - help!

Hi DGG (do you prefer David now?) -- The Copyright Clearance Center page is getting edits from three editors, one of whom is the CCC "PR guy" (Craig Sender). They have been identical edits, and I've reverted them because, among other things, they removed referenced content and replaced it with substantively different content -- while using the same reference. To be honest, I don't have time to go through all the changes (there are a lot) that these editors (or editor, because I think the others are socks or employees) are making to sort out the wheat from the promotional chaff. I've posted on Talk:Copyright Clearance Center with diffs to help illustrate, and would welcome another editor on this. I don't have a "Conflict of Interest", but I'm not CCC's biggest fan, to say the least, and I'd appreciate someone who presumably "feels" more neutrally about the organization to be part of the discussion, and work through editing conflicts. Although I strongly suspect socks, I'm not bumping this up to socks noticeboards or whatever, because, again, I'm swamped with the beginning of the semester, and I hope that this is all just a misunderstanding on the part of Craig Sender and/or his minions not really understanding that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional website; that it follows referencing rules just like any other publication; that conflicts of interest should be disclosed; etc etc etc.

So help? Or help me find someone else who can be another experienced Wikipedian voice familiar with the field?

Thanks,

Laura / Lquilter (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. . (BTW, Any name will do for me, but DGG is clearer to new WPedians who might be reading this and had not seen my user page which gives my real name) DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience

Hi DGG, thanks for moving this to its proper name. However, I think you may have deleted everything in the process because the article now redirects to itself. Could you (or any admin with the powers to do so) please restore the article's original content? -A1candidate (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixed; what happened is that two successive move requests got transmitted; due to slowness of computer connection. I thought the first had aborted. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://blog.ajperez.org/

[1] ttp://blog.ajperez.org/

[1]