Barnstars, Awards, etc.


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

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apr , May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec 
2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2009: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2012: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2013: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2014: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2015: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2016: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2017: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2018: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2019: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2020: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec

Do not add comments here; add new sections at the bottom, not the top


I'm sure I've seen you reference this essayEdit

WP:TALKINGSOFASTNOBODYCANHEARYOU. Is my memory that faulty? I can't find it, and it's possible the syntax isn't precise. Did you use this a sort of irony? I seem to remember you used the link to represent bullying behaviors. I'm seeing one such user who seems to be wanting to turn the entire AfD process on its head by using such a technique. BusterD (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have sometimes used pseudo-links like these as a statement for their own sake, without writing an actual essay. I remember saying something like this, but I can't find it. I think this one was TALKINGSOMUCH... -- but I can't find it either. As for the problem, I've commented pretty extensively at AN/I: [1], and will comment at the RfC also, But please don't confuse the reasonable message, with which I am in agreement -- that Deletion Policy is overbalanced towards deletion, and one step towards rebalancing it would be to require some version of WP:BEFORE -- with the unreasonable way it is being over-expressed. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, David. I was a debater in school before "talking so fast" became the current style. I feel anything which games the system deserves appropriate response in order to keep the system sound. I appreciate your valid concern about deletion procedures being over-weighted toward one outcome. Thanks for your valuable comments in those forums. Be well. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, I had forgotten that context. And so was I, in college--a very valuable experience, especially in facilitating the sort of intercampus experiences only the athletic teams otherwise gave occasion for. But the stimulus is interesting: if I take a turn at NPP, the amount of junk turns me for a while into a deletionist before I catch myself and stop being so unfriendly to all the newcomers. If I take a look at AfD, the number of unwarranted nominations makes me inclined to give a similarly snappy and unjust response to all of them, with the less than rational thought that if I argue against all of them, maybe there's a chance the good ones will make it. Several good inclusionists have run into trouble here falling into such temptation. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

items from 2015 and 2016 removed for archiving--a few will be replaced here

Your talk at 16 Years of WikipediaEdit

Heard your lightning talk just now. I support both the "Radical solutions to promotional paid editing" proposals you announced on notability and restrictions on anon editors around companies newer than 1999 foundation. Are there some written proposals to refer to? - Brianhe (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

there will be--one of the reasons I gave the talk was to get some feedback about just what to propose, and I am already getting some. Watch this space tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. I will evangelize to the communities I'm part of, as soon as there's something to show them. - Brianhe (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)Hi, DGG! I'd like to hear that too. Link? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Video from the lightning talks is now available via Commons. DGG's lightning talk is the first one, proposal #1 is detailed at 2:15 and #2 at 3:00. - Brianhe (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Combative deletion rebuttalsEdit

Hi DGG, I noticed a wave of combative deletion rebuttals on your page lately and wondered if this is a new phenomenon. Would you like me to answer them as able, or just leave them alone? - Brianhe (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

detailed discussion forthcoming tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In the past, most paid or other promotional editors, when their articles have been deleted, have simply gone away and tried again, generally under another username. For a while now, an increasing number of them have been adopting the practice of arguing. Many admins ignore them; my response unless they are ridiculous altogether is to explain why, sometimes in detail. If they are a good faith but promotional editor who simply has not realized, they usually understand, though it sometimes take a second round of explanation. . If they are professional paid editor with any sense, they realise they;re not going to get anywhere, and go away--and try again usually under another name. Zealots with a unpaid COI have very often continued to argue, sometimes indefinitely. The best thing for us to do here is the traditional remedy, to ignore them. Some paid editors are now doing the same, hoping to wear people down. The best technique here is to block them. If they show up for the same purpose again, they can and should be summarily blocked as behavioral meatpuppets--though we usually run a checkuser for possibly helpful additional information. The danger, as has become clear, is catching a good faith but imitative editor. There are only 3 solutions: accept promotionalism , be able to investigate who people actually are, or accept there will be occasional injustice. I will oppose the first as long as I work here, I will continue trying to change consensus to permit the second, and , alas, be forced to accept the third.
There are of course other factors. I have lately been taking a larger role at AfD, and as I didbefore, I tend to close the ones that nobody is eager to close and present some possible ambiguities. It is therefore natural that there should be exceptions taken to them. ,Unless I were to do only the obvious, it's part of the structure, and I will make an effort to address what I think are reasonable objections. And, unlike some admins who just refer people to DelRev hoping few will brave that extremely specialized process, I will revert a close if I think it may have been in error.,
There is also of course the possibility that I may have been making more errors. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

James OmurRMT 17:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)aEdit

Back in the day (Nov. 2013), you stated in an AfC comment that the subject is notable and that the page needed cleanup (diff). So, I cleaned it up and published it in main namespace just now. Feel free to improve the article further. North America1000 16:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

all it needs now is 1/removal of some adjectives and phrases that constitute puffery, 2/or that could be seen as espousing a political view, 3/removing inserting some links to relevant WP articles, 4/Clarifying 4.1, which implies but does not say that the first generation parents resisted or wanted to resist, 5/ clarifying section 4.2 by saying in the text as coming from the California oral history project & making it an indented quote, 6/ removing or sourcing multiple sentences of opinion and 7/Finding some references that come from other sources than Omura and Toland.
It makes no difference how strongly you or I agree with the his political viewpoint. If we used WP to advocate our own beliefs, we'd end up the same as Conservapedia. You may possibly think that in the current political situation in the US and some other countries, all honest citizens should feel themselves called upon to undertake action, or at least write polemics. I would probably support this as a valid position, but the advocacy does not belong on WP. The role of WP in fighting actual or potential tyranny is now and always to write objective articles in purely dispassionate language. At WP we present the facts, trusting the readers to themselves draw the proper conclusions, not to tell the reader what conclusions they ought to draw.
To avoid misunderstanding, I think the WMF, as distinct from the encyclopedia, can appropriately play a political role in defense of its values, and I support its past and present actions and statements. And, also to avoid misunderstanding, there may indeed come a time when dispassionate reporting is hopeless, and direct opposition is the only possible course. But the two should not be confused. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply. I cannot guarantee that I will improve the article more; perhaps you could post the content of your first paragraph above on the article's talk page so others will see your suggestions. North America1000 03:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Montazeri (WP:PROF)Edit

Am interested in your thoughts on this AfD, and specifically on the issue I have raised. I have no idea how you are going to !vote on this, and am curious. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Lots of naive discussions of citations from others, but the actual analysis speaks for itself. You did of very good job of editing, btw. For someone of his importance I would have done if it needed, but its great to have such competent help. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words but all I did was clear away the most fetid of the promotionalism. The remaining directory entry ( i will not it an "article") is promotional; this person cannot have an actual WP article as there no sources from which to write one. The directory entry exists because someone is trying to promote this guy. So I have just polished a turd. It should not exist in WP per NOTDIRECTORY and PROMO.
I am going to try to raise N standards around WP. I am trying because a bunch of people seem to think we should and more importantly they undercut efforts to make meaningful changes by pointing to things like changing N.
But everybody has pet projects and is willing to fight to the death to protect notability guidelines and essays that allow fake "articles" to exist in WP, that are really directory entries or worse. The journals people do it, the academic people do it, the radio people do it, the music people do it, etc. It will be a waste of time, but I will try. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm willing to go to some trouble to maintain proper standards of notability based upon objective evidence that shows someone is a leader in their field. WP:PROF is one of the very few guidelines we have that follows a rational approach to inclusion policy. I fell so strongly about objective guidelines that I support them even when I think them overly broad (as for sports) or much too narrow (as for politicians).
I can and will argue as I think appropriate & necessary using the GNG in either direction, but it's a totally useless intellectual activity that I think detracts from the encyclopedia . You may possibly have a case about directory entries (though we have about 2 million directory articles), ut I don't see how the article is PROMO. Anyway, looking at it from your direction, even so you're attacking articles that we do have in a field where we do not have anywhere near enough coverage--if you want to attack directory entries--why not do it a field where e have overcoverage. Or do you really think academics unimportant?
Of course we have information to write an article we have what's important about academics: their position and their published work. In each case that's third party information based on the university authorities and the editor of the journals and the citing authors. The decisions of peer reviewers and peer authors in the aggregate are much sounder basis for an article than the uninformed comments of journalists in most current day newspapers.
one of the differences in what I and most others do here, is that I'm willing to fight even for what other people consider important. Tolerating and supporting each other is the basis of a cooperative encyclopedia. There's real promotionalism in WP that's much more dangerous and compromising than even the original version of this article. You're losing perspective. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I know that lots of people have identified various fields in WP that they think are particularly .... bad. Some people focus on where they believe there is lots of "paid editing", some people focus on where there is lots of COI, other people on various forms of POV or bias, systemic and otherwise. I know people think that what I care about is COI/paid editing. They are wrong but I let myself get trapped too often in that box.
My work is primarily about NPOV - ensuring that articles summarize high quality sources.
NPOV is what my entire Userpage is focused on, and has been focused on, for a long time. (it comes down to finding high quality sources and accurately summarizing them)
Lots of people have said we should address the paid editing problem at least in part (and in some quarters, primarily) by raising N standards.
I agree with that. It would solve lots of other problems too.
I don't understand -- at all -- how anybody can support raising N standards, and at the same time support any guideline that allows automatic green-lighting, even when we cannot actually write a WP article about something because there are not multiple independent sources with significant discussion of it. (In other words, it isn't possible to write an NPOV article about it)
I mean it - this completely baffles me and in my view comes down to special pleading. And each Wikiproject points to the special pleading that other Wikiprojects do. Which means we will never succeed in raising N standards for any field in WP.
If, on the other hand, Guy is correct and NOTDIRECTORY has been effectively abandoned, I need to rethink what a "WP article" is and my approach to NPOV.
But as it stands, in my view, the approach to N that allows PROF and JOURNALs and RADIO to create and keep directory entries, is what allows crap articles about business executives to exist.
(and what is promotional about the article about the guy who is subject of the AfD, is its very existence in WP. It was created as part of a promotional campaign, and upon examination it fails GNG and should not exist in WP at all. It is no different than artIcle about some business executive that gets created, gets looked at, and should get deleted.)
So what do people mean when they say "raise N standards"? How is it coherent and consistent? I really don't understand (obviously). Please explain how this makes sense to you. Please. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I should acknowledge that I made a mess of the discussion at PROF. I did that badly. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Btw, i just read your userpage, and see that your thoughts about GNG and N are completely different. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
yes, they are, and I've made no secret about it. Besides what I do on wiki, I've talked about this at many events. This has been my general approach for about 7 years now--the main difference from then is that 7 years ago the problem of using WP to advertise was not as widespread, and I was much more willing to rewrite such articles than I am now. Under current conditions, I'm very much more concerned about fighting promotional editing than about disagreements on the level or criteria of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
But in making arguments in actual cases here I always give an argument based on the conventional rules. I will then sometimes supplement it with additional reasons. I use my own concepts in deciding which articles I'm going to argue about. I will not personally defend an article that clearly meets WP:N and which I do not think appropriate unless I can find some other policy-based reason. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 == Anthony Gill ==

Hi DGG. Is Anthony Gill (professor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) notable? You're better than I at accessing the notability of academics. The article was created by HM8383, a member of this undisclosed paid editing sockfarm. — JJMC89(T·C) 22:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely notable, but see my comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arunkapadia/Archive [2]:
My view is that all articles written by this group should be deleted regardless of notability. The TOU are foundation policy. Our COI policy is based both on that and WP:NOT, which supersedes all consideration of notability. Attempting to advertise someone highly notable, is still advertising, just as advocating the worthiest of causes is still advocacy. Some of the people being written about are so notable, however, that an article ought to be written. I considered whether to rewrite the existing articles, but decided not to, because it would take rewriting from scratch. I think the only way we can enforce our rules and deter promotionalism is to first delete, and then wait a bit and communicate with the subjects to make sure the lesson is learned, and then rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Talk page stalker here, with a minor point. The PROD template might benefit from a special-purpose parameter. As it is now, the wording is unfortunate. I quote: "If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy." Of course contradicting the reason for deletion. (And of course I have no objection to the idea of deleting this article or those like it. Just a matter of wording.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, there is a way a undeclared paid editor can actually save the article, which is by declaring and then rewriting. I do not think there's an actual guideline, but so far we have generally granted amnesty retrospectively, in order to encourage people to do things properly. Of course, it a situation like this there would be considerable explanation needed. Anyway, I was thinking of using speedy in analogy with G12. I know it would be to IAR, and IAR is rarely used in connection with speedy. We could have another speedy criterion, but I don't want to propose it until consensus about the tou is more firmly established. It's cases like this which will show the need for it. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I am in favor of nuking the articles created by this group. There is a list of remaining articles at WP:COIN#Arunkapadia. An IP has heavily trimmed this one. — JJMC89(T·C) 21:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
considering the extent of work on this particular article, I am not going to list it for deletion. But anyone else can do so. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

COI/BLP issuesEdit

I came across 501 7th Avenue, SeaRise Office Tower, and 111 West 33rd Street and originally thought that it was a paid promotional editor and so put a paid editing notice on the creator's user talk page. Looking a bit closer at the user's created articles, it seems that they might actually be trying to spread information about Qatari owned businesses that have terrorist funding connections, and have created several BLPs/recent deaths that make terrorist funding/terrorism claims too: Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, Ismail al-Salabi, Mohammed bin Hashim al-Awadhy. I'm not sure how great the sourcing is on the BLPs, but given the sensitive nature of the topic and a near laser focus on it, it raised my eyebrows. You deleted Pamodzi Sports Marketing as G11, and since that was the last deletion on the talk page, and I know you have experience with COI type subjects, I thought I would get your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have generally thought most large buildings in major cities notable, though it is difficult to say an exact size, and t will depend on the city.

Searise & W33rd St are I thing large enough; 7th Ave isn't but it was built by a famous architect. But what we really need is an article for the company that owns them (and the Empire State Building), Empire State Partners (formerly Empire State Realty Trust), which is mentioned in the Empire State building article); it is a NUYSE company and has an interesting history. None of this of course answers the question of whether we should keep articles on notable subjects by undeclared paid promotional editors. I've been arguing that we should not--for those that are so notable as to be essential, someone else can rewrite them -- after a gap, because there is no other way to convince people that it is not helpful to pay for an article. If your suggestion is correct, it's still by a promotional editor, because it's advocacy which is considered as promotionalism , but that isn't considered nough reason for deletion, if the subject is notable just for revision unless it's so bad that revision is hopeless and it falls under G11.

I'll look at the BLPs tomorrow. The sourcing is,as you say, not great, but I think they would pass AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Review some JzG deletionsEdit

Hi, JzG's talk page notice suggested contacting you for review of deletions. He also seems to be on a wikibreak. Please have a look at my query at User talk:JzG#Deletion of long-standing articles without review, which came about from a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Timeline of Facebook. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

fwiw, those deletions stem from this ANI thread, Vipul's paid editing enterprise, where there have been some calls to delete company timeline articles created by the group under discussion there. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh and i just saw this: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_Wikipedia_wide_new_policy_is_needed_to_ban_.22paid_for.22_editing. oy. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I would probably support a CSD criterion modeled after G5, for undeclared paid editing, but we do not currently have one, and using G11 for the purpose is stretching it very far. This is especially true when the actual article was probably not written as promotionalism or advocacy, but as a unfortunately misguided good faith approach to improving WP. JzG is very much around, and I do not intend to do this without notifying him, especially because I entirely respect and totally agree with his desire to rid WP of blatantly improper editing. I consider the speedies to be misjudgment, not absolute error. I will undelete them tomorrow unless there are arguments otherwise., and they can then be taken to AfD I fully understand why the deleting admin did this, and I totally sympathize with his views on this sort of editing. But G11 is really not the appropriate method. These need to be taken to Afd if they are to be deleted, because this is a disputed situation and requies explicit consensus. Speedy is not appropriate when the consensus will be debated, only when the deleting admin can be reasonably sure that the consensus would certainly support him. I do not think there's the case here. and the best course would be for JzG to do that himself. My own suggestion would instead be a merge, and therefore I will not personally take it to afd after it has been restored, for AfD is not needed to do a merge.. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So, first of all, I already proposed a speedy criterion for material created in violation of the terms of use, and it was rejected. Getting any kind of broad community consensus on what to do with paid advertorial is difficult, not least because there is a group of people who for whatever reason seek to make it impossible. Not all of these are associated with the Sangerites and their fawning over Kohs. Some have a genuine, if in my view misguided, belief, that Wikipedia's need for articles overwhelms the problems of people subverting Wikipedia for profit.
That's why I only removed a small number of articles. There are several medical timelines, for example, all paid for by the same pyramid scheme, which I did not touch.
The articles I did remove are promotional in intent and designed, in my view, purely for SEO. They are timelines of commercial entities, paid for by Vipul (who engages in SEO as well as his Wikipedia editing pyramid scheme), replete with numerous links to other commercial entities, several of which are owned by Vipul. And that's what pushes them over the line. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
JzG, You may be right, but you shouldn't be making this decision by yourself, especially because there is disagreement about the nature of Vipul's motivations. Please undelete and send them to AfD. This particular case very much needs discussion, and preferably not just between the two of us. . As for the speedy criterion, the main problem I see is exactly what is presented here--the difficulty in determining motivations (and identity, usually, though not in this case). DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)



Hi DGG, I just wanted to thank you for having a spirited but civil discussion at AfD. Your points are good, as I believe are mine. Your good demeanor is refreshing. I didn't want to clutter the AfD page up with this, but wanted to say "Thanks!" Jacona (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC) (re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Mendelson )


Here, you say "About reusing drafts: the unlikelihood of anyone else reusing a draft is one of the faults of our current system. I think there are at most 4 people (including myself) who rescue old drafts. I generally only do them in my primary field of interest (academic faculty and related), but even so I have a very long list, and very rarely have time to do one. We do not even have a system where when someone starts an article, it shows whether there is a pre-existing draft on the topic. The default Wikipedia search does not pick them up, and even if set to Everything only finds them if spelled the same way. Kudpung, you know this system best--is there any reasonable solution?". Maybe INDEXing the drafts is the solution?   Ethanbas (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

this has been proposed, and decisively rejected. Drafts contain unverified material, including copyvios and advertising nd possible BLP violations. The whole idea for drafts is that they are not yet reasd to have a prominent position in external indexes. They do show up in our internal search, if one knows the title and specifies a customs search.T
the solution that has been suggested several times and could have been adopted years ago, is to categorize them in at least rough categories, so people could at least scan them. The objection has been raised that there are not people willing to do this manually, but there are two other methods: a simple weighted keyword approach, which, however inexact, is at least a start, and more recently an AI system. There has historically been a dichotomy--at least a perceived dichotomy--between the people who work with the WP infrastructure and the people who work with articles. Fortunately, under the current Executive Director, there seems to be a possibility of some improvement. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Bryan CaplanEdit

You have an interest in professors, so this may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Caplan (2nd nomination) Ethanbas (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that Vipul did not mention he is associated with Caplan when he added so many primary-sourced references to Caplan's blogging into articles. Funny how that goes, eh? Guy (Help!) 00:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
JzG, there are two alternative approaches to COI problems: one is to simply judge the subject for notability in the usual way; the other, for which you have been arguing, is to judge the intent. I certainly understand the point of your way of doing it: I would support a rule that undeclared paid editing be deleted rather than fixed on the same principle as we delete articles from banned editors (otherwise the prohibition is toothless), and I would probably also support a rule that grossly COI articles also be deleted rather than fixed unless someone actually rewrites them, as we do for copyvio. There are also arguments against either proposition, and I think the strongest two are that usually we cannot tell, so it will remain toothless, and that is that paid editors can be persuaded to declare, and COI editors taught to write properly (though both seem to be quite rare occurrences).
But at present the community supports neither rule. I doubt we could get the necessary support to explicitly change either of them, and I am very reluctant to propose that until there is some chance ofsucceeding in the argument Another way to change the rule is to change what we actually do at AfD, because the rules here are what we actually do, rather than just what we say; this is the method you;ve been pursuing. I've been doing the same thing, but I am trying to concentrate on the individuals without significant notability, not clearly notable people like him DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence BoF at Wikimania 2017Edit


My name is David Alves (User:Horadrim~usurped), and I'm an Wikipedian in Residence at RIDC NeuroMat (User:Horadrim). I've reach your contact through the == Wikimedian in Residence BoF at Wikimania 2017 ==outreach:WIR|Wikimedian in residence page]] in Outreach. As you may know, Wikimania 2017 is coming! I am here because, as a fellow WiR, I believe this would be a great opportunity for us to share experiences, discuss difficulties and exchange solutions, creating a community among us capable of supporting in other projects that would benefit from residents. In that sense, I have submitted a proposal of a Birds of a Feather activity to Wikimania that you can check out here. I hope to count with your support in this project and would like to invite you to join us if you participate in Wikimania. In case of any doubts, please feel free to contact me, either in my talk pages or by e-mail at david.alves

Thank you very much! ‎Horadrim~usurped (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


I just wanted to comment and say I really appreciate your User page. Thanks for writing that up because I have always felt the same way and couldn't say it better myself. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Radford draftEdit

hi DGG. you mentioned that you would like to see <andrew radford> draft before i submit and that you would accept it.

photo is a family photo and i have permission from radford to use it freely. thanks so much for any feedback. i could submit next week if it looks ok. josephJosephgalasso (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

even if you have permission, you need to follow the formal procedures at WP:DCM. The copyright permission must be made by the copyright owner, and it must be for CC-BY, which permits use not just in WP, but use anywhere by anyone for any purpose, even commercial. And we normally list doctoral students only if they are notable themselves. We usually don't mention editorial board membership, only editor-in chief. Otherwise it seems OK. DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
to check

Talk page sizeEdit

Wikipedia editing guild

Pardon, can I ask you to archive a bit more of this talk page? My browser is hanging when I try to post here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I keep intending to. thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Which browser and OS, Jo-Jo? Given a lengthy talk page here, with Safari on an iPad I have no problems reading or posting here. With Windows 10 and IE 11 attempting to go directly to a section from my watchlist hangs—but going to User talk:DGG works OK. Surely there should be a computer based solution. Fifty years ago (when I started programming) maybe no, but now? — Neonorange (Phil) 20:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If I may butt in; I'm using Safari on iPhone, and when I first tried to load this page I got an error message saying something like "An error occurred. Attempting to reload page." I've never gotten that message before. This is quite possibly the most popular talk page on Wikipedia. Lizard (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
actually, it's slowing down even for me, with Safari and 16GB memory. It's my own fault, because I ambitiously set up a system of subject archives instead of doing like everyone else. I will make another try this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The Windows 10 64-bit system and the 80 Mbit/sec Internet connection I use is way overkill for editing and browsing. Your talk page, as it is the moment of my sig time stamp, loads in less than a second when I go to User talk:DGG. When I go to a specific section of the page (from my watchlist) the browser busy pointer appears and after five minutes is still busy. I must reload Wikipedia in the browser to continue, as the page cannot be recovered. Computers should allow a person to be as productive as that person wishes, not the reverse. — — Neonorange (Phil) 00:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
the section editing for me works in just the opposite way--much faster. Anyway, expect some improvements here. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Thank you for all you do to help keep Wikipedia collaborative. It's a thankless task, on the ANI board.auntieruth (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability and GNGEdit

Summary, modified from my comment elsewhere,

The policy on whether we keep an article is not WP:N. The policy is WP:NOT. The guideline WP:N is the explanation for how we decide on one part of that policy, NOT INDISCRIMINATE. An article might meet that, but fail other parts of NOT. If something is effectually promotion, it fails NOTADVOCACY, and that's enough to rule it out as encyclopedia content, because we do not advertise anything, no matter how notable. There's no justification for keeping advertising in Wikipedia any more than there is copyvio. Unless there is a NPOV version to revert to, or unless it is immediately fixed, it should be deleted, whether by speedy G11 or at AfD. It shouldn't be moved to draft or userified in the hope of improvement, as we might for something lacking in sources for notability but where there's a good chance of finding them. We wouldn't do that for copyvio. We wouldn't do that for BLP violations. Using WP for advertising is just as harmful. "fixable" applies in many circumstances, but not for any of these. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
HM. Hm. Set brain to churning with all kinds of things clicking. Two questions:
  • Is that true, historically? I mean, was N created to flesh out NOT, explicitly?
  • Is this widely seen as true in your view? (I have never heard of it or thought about it this way.... it makes total sense however) Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
(1) See this very early version of WP:N from Sept 2006:
Based on several sections What Wikipedia Is Not, it is generally agreed that topics in most areas must have a certain notability in order to have an article in Wikipedia. Several guidelines have been created, or are under discussion, to indicate what is and is not notable by Radiant!. (but at that point several of the proposed specific guidelines had developed to approximately their present form, with varying degrees of acceptance). The first appearance of a GNG was in Nov, 2006. by UncleG
(2) This my understand of the necessary implications of WP:NOT. It is my interpretation, & I think reflects the trend of decisions at AfD. It is not universally accepted; the alternate interpretation is for keeping promotional articles even if borderline notable, if it is at all possible to fix the promotionalism. In choosing how to interpret, we should follow logic & consistency, but also practical considerations. My view is that accepting even temporarily promotionalism plays into the hands of paid editors and other spammers, and that such editing has the real potential to destroy the usefulness of WP as an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I meant mostly the "this guideline fleshes out NOT" thing. Thanks for the history link! Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

another restatement of notabilty SNG vs GNGEdit

(my argument at a recent deletion review in popular music) Consistent practice at WP has been that meeting the SNG is enough in this field. Guidelines are what we do, not just what we say, and if there is conflict between the two, it's what we do that matters. WP is not run primarily by rules, but primarily by consensus--rules are attempts to codify the usual consensus, and are valid only to the extent the community in practice supports them. re ambiguous, The rule on charting has an enormous advantage: it produces unambiguous results. Except for the need to define just what charts it is that count, there's not much room for dispute and decisions can be easily made,. Following the GNG is another matter entirely:the specifications that coverage by ""reliable"", significant coverage, independent and secondary and in sufficient number, can be endlessly debated, and in all fields where we rely on the GNG they are endlessly debated-in most cases that reach AfD they can be plausibly debated in every direction, and people in practice pick what side to argue by some sort of global judgement about whether the article should belong in WP. Thus our hundred or so FaDs a day where the main discussion is the opportunity to show skill in quibbling, and the result depends on just which skilled quibblers appear at the discussion. I don't care about the individual results in this subject field, but I do care they our decisions be consistent and rational. The SNG does that--the GNG guarantees the opposite.

Perhaps it's odd that with some degree of reputation as a skilled quibbler, and years of experience quibbling on both sides of AfDs, I want to do away with those discussions. I've experience in a lot of unnecessary things, and I'd much rather use my skills at something substantial at RSN or the like, and in figuring how to fix articles. I came here because I thought I could use quite different skills in finding refs to fix articles, but I've never had a chance to use them much. Debating as we do it is just a game. Sourcing is real. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Eliyahu Leon LeviEdit

Hi DGG, I noticed you struck the listing for Eliyahu Leon Levi at WP:AN/CXT No. 9 with the comment that it is in adequate English; but how's the translation? The quality of English in the article isn't really that important; any copyeditor can do that. What we are mostly concerned with, is the accuracy of the translation, as most of the pages in this list were script-generated due to a misconfig in ContentTranslation and are either pure MT, or MT+monolingual copyedit, so don't worry too much about the English quality.

If you can vouch for accuracy of articles translated from Hebrew, the following ones in the list could use your help, if you have the time: #106, 197, 1627, 1680, and 1907. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is a questionable reach for me , as I do not read the language at all. I cannot vouch for accuracy; I can vouch for the English making sense and being consistent and the facts reported being likely. Like most bios, the article is extremely straightforward and leaves little to be misinterpreted. I know the cultural significance of what's reported, and it makes sense. I would not have looked at anything more complex or where I understood nothing of the subject. It's no worse that way than were it to have been written directly into the enWP using Hebrew sources, and certainly had it been an unacknowledged machine translation. The only reason these articles are any different is we know instead of guess that they used machine translation. So I shall ask a wikifriend to verify.
And I did likewise with a Chinese article on a straightforward political career. Again, it makes sense, but it is a language where machine translation to English is notable awful. It could be imaginary, but so could any article using Chinese sources. I'll ask for verification.
The other languages I've worked with I do know how to read at least somewhat, best for French and German. How well I can deal with them depends upon how simple they are. I've done translations in both from scratch, but I do not attempt deWP articles on history with their usual complicated German syntax--this is one case where it is easily possible to get mixed up. However, some types of articles are extremely formulaic. I'm most likely to run into an uncertainty regarding the equivalence of positions in different countries, tho as a librarian I know a lot of organizational equivalents. (There's a very nice large book A manual of European languages for librarians by CG Allen. Invaluable for the Soviet era in particular.) And if I come across anything I'm unsure about, or where I do not know the cultural equivalent, or where the original seems confused, I leave that part out. I see from the comments that other do similarly.
But this raises some more general questions. I was going to post on the project talk p.and I will in some more detail tomorrow:
How many of the articles I accept at NPP or AfC can I really vouch for the accuracy? That's an unrealistically high standard for any new page patroller--all we really check is basic verifiability. That a translation is not quite accurate is no worse than in the English from a non-native speaker is not quite accurate, or if the sources don't actually verify what they say they do, or are unavailable. The only time we really check an article in depth is when an article is challenged at AfD or analyzed for GA or FA. What we're looking for is basic correctness, not detail.
of the first 100 articles, we're accepting or redirecting almost all of them that are worth working on. Some that I could read perfectly well I am not marking for acceptance because I do not consider them worth the work, and I see others are deciding similarly. My intent is to rescue everything worth rescuing if I can do enough work. The project would be enormously simplifyied if we simply accepted translations from the Scandinavian languages. The machine translation does very well with them, because the syntax is almost identical. It also does well with straightforward German.(as distinct from the professional level German in their longer articles) In other languages , the most serious inaccuracy is the sequence of events because of the difference in tense use which are very often messed up by the machine translation, and the original is often a little unclear here also. But I'm particularly concerned the project did not screen out those articles that used the machine translation as a base, and then edited manually by the contributor or a good editor. There's no reason to assume they're incompetent.
Our role should be to screen out the ones that are incapably done, and not worth fixing. There are fewer than I anticipated--perhaps 25% not 50%. I also consider it our role to produce readable though not necessarily high quality English. :::I am not going to let something that can barely be deciphered pass no matter where I see it. How far it's worth fixing depends on how easy it is to fix, and it's importance.
If this standard is not acceptable, I might challenge the entire project using the experience I now have as the basis. The goal of all we do there is, after all, to get articles worth keeping, not to reject all problematic ones out of hand. But in any case I do understand your advice, and will work more conservatively. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this very thoughtful and detailed response. You raise a lot of interesting issues regarding translation, verifiability, accuracy, quality, and others that go beyond the narrow issue here that sparked the original comment. I hang out at WP:PNT and think about translation there and in other venues (both on, and off-wiki) and I've been thinking about how to better organize this in a way to improve the encyclopedia generally, and capitalize on all the talent and interested people we have here and assemble a group of those who are interested to discuss that. I know there's a WikiProject Translation, but for what I have in mind, I'm not sure if that's the right place for it, as I think this is something else, but anyway (sorry, I'm rambling; it's late!) let's keep in touch about this, if you would like to.
Back to the original topic: I understand your PoV, and in a pool of 3600 articles, it's not so important if one article more or less gets kept or not (with the exception that I hate to nuke ones that editors have worked long and hard on, unless policy really requires it) so if you want to restrike to keep this one it's fine by me, or tell me and I'll do it. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
My confusion; no need to restrike E L Levi, it's still struck as you left it; I've been doing so many of these lately, can't remember which way is up! Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Librarians -- especially academic librarians -- have the distinctive requirement to be able to deal with material about which they have only the scantiest knowledge--there were about 100 professional librarians at my university, and we were expected to be able to understand the requirements of about 1000 faculty, all of whom had a world-class specialized knowledge that we could not hope to match--even those of us who became librarians after a research career had only mastered one special field, not 10 of them. This is obviously a good background for working at WP. Publishers have a similar skill, and so do reporters. This included the need to work with a range of languages--some of the faculty had an extremely impressive range indeed, but still we collected in more languages than was presently represented. But librarians do not have to truly understand the details of a book in order to catalog it, just understand it well enough to figure out what it is about and the level of the analysis. I've taught librarians also, and though no one can actually teach these abilities, I did explain to my students that if they were to win the respect of faculty, they had to at least know how to pronounce properly the words of their various specialties. (Thus I can spell and pronounce chemical and biological names much better than I can ordinary English) The same is of course true of many non-academic fields--you have to at least know the talk. So I will boldly attempt anything unless I know by experience I will make a fool of myself.
There's a difference among the various WPs. deWP is known for insisting on a solid university level of German, and we don't expect anything more than high school level literacy. We deal more than any other WP with people who cannot really write the language, and within limits, we encourage them. Fortunately, we have a very wide range of language and other specialists, and there is very little we cannot find someone to deal with. (The problem in that in some fields and languages there are very few of them, and they may not be representative of the range of POVs) By experience, I've learned some fields where I can , and cannot, trust the available WPedians, both here and at their own language WPs. I am very reluctant to delete anything the de or fr WPs consider notable --but this does not hold at all for some of the other European language WPs.
Anyway, that's where I come from intellectually. I see you understand, and I appreciate it. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) David, that's an interesting analysis, thanks. I'd noticed that there are many of us librarians or retired librarians editing Wikipedia, and had thought it was connected with our urge to make knowledge accessible, along with an interest in cross-references etc, but you've reminded me of our professional ability to deal with sources of information in subjects we don't understand, and up to a point in languages we don't understand. One of my first tasks as a graduate trainee librarian, many years ago, was to catalogue and classify a couple of shelves-full of books in Macedonian, with some highschool knowledge of Russian and a Macedonian-English dictionary: they'd been donated from Skopje and the chap on whose office shelves they were waiting needed the space. I've set myself the challenge of creating an article for every editathon of WP:Women in Red, whether or not it's an area I know (or care!) much about: it's an interesting exercise! PamD 21:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)



I see the Chad Robichaux page has been nominated for deletion. You stated that, "promotional bio. full of puffery and uncited praise. The athletic career does not seem to meet the requirements,and there is nothing else substantial. I would not have accepted this from AfC."

Thank you for your feedback on the article. I made some edits to the page to remove any puffery. It don't understand, however, your other reasons for this being deleted. Can you help me? As I read the biography for living person page this seems to fall in line with the requirements and the coverage doesn't fall under "routine coverage" as described.

You are the expert, so however I can learn and make this page better I will gladly hear.


A cup of coffee for you!Edit

  Thanks for reviewing my article. Yavarai (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 10 years ago...Edit

  Wishing DGG a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Beer and bread fueling your labors. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your user pageEdit

I was just looking at your user page and I must say, you have some interesting reading on there. Thank you for sharing! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We've got a problemEdit

OK. I looked at the famous February 2017 RFC on SCHOOLOUTCOMES, analyzed it some also did some thinking on my own dime. My full unfinished take is here, but don't click that link, it's long. In summary:

  • FWIW WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indeed accurate. Of 35 randomly sampled the result was 34-1 Keep (or maybe 34-0, 29-1, 29-0 depending on how you count).
  • FWIW there are valid reasons to cite WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES I think. 1) it's valid to say "this works, let's keep doing it", 2) it's valid to say "not this shit again, its a timesink, let's not do it" 3) the community has consistently expressed its opinion on the general question for 15 years, and that counts. 4) maybe others I didn't think of. It's a matter of opinion, but reasonable opinion that one can disagree with but not just blow off, I would say.
  • Examining the February 2017 RFC, I found that the closers made a mistake -- a bad one. They said "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOME... has been rejected by the community", but that's not actually true; it wasn't (I'm pretty sure; I'm still working on analyzing this, and it will take some hours; but it appears so at this point).
  • Therefore people are being given a bum steer, I would say. The poor admin over at the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 10#DRV for Kent School is having do deal with a shitshorm, and its not his fault. He followed what is written: "Firstly, I think the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is unequivocal: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist"

This is a problem IMO.

I didn't say this in public, but I have dark suspicions about the people who closed the February 17 RfC. Be that as it may, we can at least say that they demonstrated lack of acuity and diligence. As someone who has closed a couple RfC where I took a week (not 40 full hours, but still), I was appalled to see statements like "many arguments didn't make sense and were ignored". Man, that is not how you adjudicate a hugely visible and important RfC! I mean at least don't say that out loud. If you're too busy do to it right don't do it.

The key point is that the closer said "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOME... has been rejected by the community", but that isn't true, apparently (still working on this, but pretty sure it is not true). Mendacity or... lacking acuity... doesn't matter. They used this (untrue ) statement to make or authorize significant changes to a couple of pages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

My inclination is to roll back these changes and cite User:Herostratus/Understanding SCHOOLOUTCOMES as justification. Whether WP:BRD applies after three months, I don't know... doubt it. My inclination could also get me in a heap of trouble. I'd rather let jack do it. If I'm going to do it, I need cover. I have enough enemies already.

But it's important enough to not just shrug off IMO. As a matter of principle the whole affair frosts me, for one thing. Four guys supervoting on a highly visible RfC is toxic to community feeling. As a matter of practice, leaving this alone will probably result (after much wasteful drama, and admins being caught in the middle) with a blow to our coverage of high schools outside the first world.

So what to do next? Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What to do next is to vigorously defend all plausible articles, while letting the very weakest go. I'm willing to accept literally that "citing SA doesn't have consensus" Focus on the rest of the RfC, that in practice we do always keep them. Since nothing in that whole section of common outcomes is policy or even guideline, just advice. I wouldn't bother trying to upset or reconsider the RfC=, no matter how aelf-contradictory its conclusion. Policy & guidelines are important concepts in hierarchical organizations, but at WP, policy is what we do unless there's a very good reason otherwise, and a guideline is what we usually do., unless we decide not to. Usage makes the policies sand the guidelines. Even so , notability isn't even a policy, but a guideline for one part of the real policy, WP:NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and the so-called GNG is just one possible way to apply WP:N. We can use it if it helps. I don't thing it often does, because experience shows how easy it is to manipulate the details to get whatever result is desired. It's a way of arguing, not a useful guide. If I were more cynical, I'd support it, because it would serve my interests, as I have considerable skill and experience in arguments using it in both directions. NOT INDISCRIMINATE is an important and in my opinion necessary policy, but the details of how we choose to apply it it are what affects the results. Just don't cite it. Cite the facts, as you just did in the first sentence above: We always keep them, unless there are unusual circumstances. It's a convention justified by its utility. Remember, as WP idiosyncratically uses the term, "notability " says nothing about actual merit. It's a term of art, meaning only "worth keeping in the encyclopedia".I wish we had never started using it, but instead, said what we meant.

I cannot explain the existence of the current push against high schools. It has the effect of clogging up AfD and preventing proper consideration of the real problems here, which are promotionalism and fan support of the transiently popular. I hope that isn't the intent, but rather am misguided faith in ideological purity. WP is not the place for ideological purity. WP is driven by consensus, and the essence of consensus is compromise, not rigour. Those wh owant rigour wshould go elsewhere.

But consensus has a weakness--it an be defeated by zealots. The only defense is for sensible people to stay with their purpose, and argue each dispute as it comes up. At WP, success goes to the most persevering, Think of it as those who care the most, not those who are most stubborn. who are assumed to care the most. I was raised in a tradition of political activism, and what I was taught was: always appear at every opportunity. Let's see who has the real majority. Otherwise the minority of zealots rule, as they currently do in what I still think to be my country. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

American Jewish Anti-BolshevismEdit

Can you take a look at this please. I've prodded it because I'm sure it's an amalgam of chunks of text text copied from the one source that's used but I don't have the book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, did you notice there's a snippet view of the book on Google Books? It's not great but maybe good enough to scan for copyvio.
(later) Oops, maybe not - it's volume 1 and the article uses volume 2 or 3. Anyway here's the link [3]. - Bri (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Kudpng, it cannot simultaneously be OR and copyvio. And if it is not copyvio, then I do not see it as OR, but the summary of information based on a book with other sources used as well.Thestyle, with the long quotations, and the manner of referencing, suggests that it's a term paper. The snippet view is useless, it's from a quotation in the book. I tried other phrases, only ones from the quotation bring up the book. I suspect its in part a paraphrase., at least as far as organization goes. It covers a narrower scope than the current title; I moved it to American Jewish Anti-Bolshevism during the Russian Revolution. I think the way to proceed is to list it at Copyright problems DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

contemporary artists articles still unassessed as keepEdit

I've been avoiding these as likely lost causes but we may as well deal with whatever we've got. Not sure what the agenda is tomorrow for you but here are some of my current art articles, in addition to that one about the guy who cast bronzes. Oh and a librarian for you: Ana_Santos_Aramburo. And also Dolors_Lamarca

(talk page watcher) I don't know the background to this but had a look at a couple out of curiosity:
Faunesa_de_pie - looks as if Standing female faun and Kneeling female faun should get a mention in The Gates of Hell: lots of ghits for various versions of this sculpture. The Spanish wikipedia article is longer than this English stub.
Aurelio Gonzato - looks like an exact translation of the Italian wikipedia article. Don't see any sign of phallic device - but perhaps that's in some other context I don't know about. PamD 07:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@PamD: First of all, pleased to meet you. And, you are right about phallic, thank you. I apparently looked at "metallic planes" way way way too fast. I still can't figure out what it did though, and he patented it? was it like a transformer? Became different things? Any thoughts welcome. Do you speak Italian? Meanwhile the context to this is that DGG told me on a different earlier talk page that he is going to an edit-a-thon at the Metropolitan museum tomorrow and it so happens that I have a bunch of art articles in this list of bad machine translations scheduled for deletion, except get this, some of them are fairly excellent articles... and then there is the stuff totally beyond my own horizons where I can't tell if it's too technical or too finnish, etc. So. what I have been doing is going down the list to make sure nobody tosses the astrophysics and cryptology articles, then I took some French under my wing, then nobody was doing Portuguese so....Please feel free to jump in. The key question is whether it would be easier to fix a given article or to start over. This is of course subjective but over a couple of iterations we have identified a lot stuff that is fine, other stuff not worth the headaches, or a whole lot more stuff somewhere in between, as with the articles above, where at least two editors appear to have machine translated museum catalogs or something possibly copyvio. And there are weirdnesses that often a sign of something wrong that someone made wronger trying to fix it. Anyway I have talked to DGG about some of these articles and hey if he is going to be at an editathon....if he potentially can enlist some editors at the editathon I thought I would share some of my bemusements. The Rodin piece is definitely worth an article but I am not sure I believe what this one says right now. Anyway, we have entire languages and fields of study that aren't being looked at much right now... we got Tang poets and Roman fortifications and WW2 missiles, origin of life, Chinese warlords, holocaust massacres in lithuania... need arabic, gujarati, chinese. Bulgarian and Portugese would also be very nice. Even if you only speak english you could still fish the Women in Red Articles out of there and that would help a bunch too. Elinruby (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Elinruby: Unfortunately i was too much involved in other thing at the museum editathon to work on any of this. I still would like to, and I will be going back there in a few weeks. There's a NYC chapter meeting Wednesday, and I will mention the project if there's time.
However , I do not think it essential to decide whether or not to keep these translated articles. The purpose of the verification is to see if the basic facts are correctly translated, and whether the article is either OK as is, or worth working on further. Some of the participants in this project are of the opinion that all machine translations are hopelessly unreliable, and I think they're wrong . Certainly they are almost always in need of some degree of rewriting (more or less, depending on the language=-the Scandinavian ones are usually very close, and the ones from the languages of India very rough indeed.) A few disastrous problems in meaning have been demonstrated, so they all do do need checking. The problems are not just linguistic but cultural--not knowing the corresponding titles or special meanings in other countries. An interesting example is the very different meaning someone in the US, Russia, or even England is likely to think of first for the term "Civil War"--or what someone in a particular country thinks is meant by "War of Independence", (Such problems turn up not only in machine translation, but manual translation by those whose knowledge of one of the two languages is inadequate , and even original writing by someone with inadequate command of English--or indeed even a native speaker working a a field where they do not know the specialist terminology. Our Wikipedia has had probably hundreds of thousands of such articles submitted, and probably a few thousand serious problems remain. Very few articles here have been meticulously checked against the sources by someone expert in the field, and this is why we say that nobody should use WP for serious research.
But those who are expert in both languages--a few of them quite specifically professional translators--want to use their professional standards , just as many of us want to have perfect English grammar in articles, or perfectly formatted citations. But WP is the encyclopedia written by amateurs, not experts. We want to be as good as we reasonably can, but the standard is not academic perfection.
the usual errors in machine translation can be dealt with by amateurs and the level of background knowledge necessary for this depends on the subject. I can translate basic geographical articles from a number of languages, but I don't think there's any for which I would be capable of doing justice to a complex philosophical or historical article. We do need our language experts, but not for everything. Anyone working with machine translations of, say, the Spanish WP, knows the likely errors in tense and gender--but also should know the somewhat lower standards of notability and citation in that WP, and the vagueness of some articles written there by those who may know the language, but not the subject. Even a WP of the very highest standards, such as the deWP, which I think in general quite superior to ours', uses general references in cases where we would insist on specifics (and in many instances I think they it is they who are right about that, not the enWP, but still we must add referencing to satisfy our own expectations, whatever we think of them.)
There's a sort of panic when people here come upon a set of particularly weak or problematic articles, leading to an over-hasty decision to delete all of them, such as attempt at the WP:AN to delete one particular editor's very brief but almost always accurate one or two sentence stubs about clearly notable scientists. The people advocating mass deletion can easily find a few conspicuously awful problems, but they're usually just a few % (there have been mass deletions that have been fully justified, such as a large group of articles on slime molds using obsolete taxonomy where most would have to be rewritten from scratch, or a group of geographical stubs using a incorrect procedure for getting material from a census. There's a saying here, better no article at all than a bad one. This is rational, if "bad" is used to mean awful in one sense or another. It is not rational if "bad" is used to mean inadequate. This is a place where inadequate article get fixed slowly over time. There are a great many editors here who want to improve a small part of an article , but not write an entire article. And an inadequate article on a place or non-living person can still give enough identification to help the user who knows nothing at all. DGG ( talk ) 13:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: it's ok, I knew you might and the sorting process was actually somewhat helpful in itself. And Pam came by to look at a few for me so overall it was a win. I do have some specific questions about that list if you have a moment. But I'll mention first that yes, I agree with you, but nonetheless if wp is getting crap articles because a software tool allows someone to make them faster than they can be fixed, it might be an idea to improve the process so the articles need less fixing whether they come fast or slow. I do have some thoughts about that since I have been doing some of that cleaning for a long time, but for now I am just trying to get some articles adopted before we blow up the others and I start asking you what I need to do to get rid of X2. So, in the goal of getting some articles adopted let me come back to that lost for a moment. I made some posts on the talk page last night and would especially like to know what you think of the one about Tunis. I would also like to know what you suggest about the Olympic athletes and the 18th century mathematicians? Thanks for all you do. Elinruby (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

X2 was in my opinion a major error, and what we need to do is not delete the articles, but delete X2, and reject the approach to WP on which X2 is based. Given that we're stuck with it, as we are with all of our over-hasty ill-informed decisions based on inadequate evidence. There will be more--our manner of decision making is subject to such decisions unless they are immediately and vigorously opposed, and get widespread attention. Whether every verifiable Olympic athlete should be notable is an open question, but WP at this time treats them as such. If the original language source or the translation appears to verify, the article must be kept. The articles on 18th century mathematicians follow the same rules as later ones: if they held a major university appointment, or had notable disciples, or published important works, or have something named after them, they will meet WP:PROF.
Unfortunately, there are at least two other situations where I need to do similar rescue: the attempt at WP:AN to remove all the 1000 or so stubs by a particular contributor on the basis that 1% of them are inaccurate, and the attempt to delete G13 without looking at the drafts to see whether any are salvageable or even ready for mainspace. I feel overwhelmed to the extent that I am almost unable to work on any of them, and need to force myself to work here at all. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I hear you I hear you Elinruby (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Userspace draftsEdit

Hi there, DGG. I understand that you feel strongly that "We can and should delete drafts when there is no hope of an article", but you do realize that the outcome of last year's WP:CONSENSUS, reflected in WP:STALE, is something different, right? That WP:GNG do not apply in user- and draft- space and that neglect of a draft wasn't grounds for deletion, etc.... Do you think it might be better to change the policy, rather than going around it? Because that's how the SD requests look to me. I'm not being tendentious, either; just trying to have good faith dialogue. Newimpartial (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not mention the GNG in these arguments; I agree it does not apply outside article space, and I have in fact argued that it should not apply. As for speedy, I have never listed a speedy for a draft or users space except for the reasons that are appropriate there, which include G11. It is true I think we should use G11 much more energetically. I remind you that while the RfCs said that G13 does not apply except in draft space, they did say that "For userspace drafts where notability is unlikely to be achieved, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely. However, the community did not arrive at a specified time duration." and, for userspace drafts, " They can be deleted, but it should be done on grounds different than solely the age of the draft or the period the draft has not been edited." Therefore, the outcome for individual items is subject to consensus at the MfD. That's always been the case for deletion process. The two fundamental principles involved are: WP is an encyclopedia , and IAR.
Simultaneous, I very strong disapprove of the use of G13 for improvable drafts, and most especially for drafts that are already good enough for article space but where inappropriately declined. We need to find a workable system for proper notification and working on them.It and everything else about AfC would be helped by clearing out the hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
OK; I can see where you're coming from. And I agree that MfD is the place to adjudicate these deletion requests. But that is why I have the problem I do with speedy G11s - it seems to me that many of them aren't G11 at all, but just wimpy early drafts; in cases where they really are WP:SPAM I have no problem seeing them deleted by consensus. But in my deletion review, you say that User:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx "would be a good Speedy anywhere" - but I don't see how it is WP:SPAM at all. It's just a baby article lol. Newimpartial (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, can I just say that it is difficult for me to find you so insightful here <>, and not just because you agree with me :), but so cavalier about userspace deletion here <>. I get whiplash. lol. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a high regard for keeping anything that might be a promising article, and a low tolerance for anything that's going to remain useless. Obviously, views on what falls into these categories will differ. G11 is a criterion which is not as obvious as it claims to be, but it's our best defense against those who would debase the encyclopedia. My priorities vary with time as our needs differ. Ten years ago it was critical to support broad inclusiveness, now to resist promotionalism. But I shall look again at the del rev. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC) and I did. your argument did have some merit. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
More generally, as with most guidelines and policies in WP, the meaning of the deletion criteria depends a great deal on how they are interpreted. The interpretation is done by the accumulated and sometimes changing consensus on the talk pages of the noticeboards and policy/guideline pages, and by the very variable decisions at individual instances. The result is sometimes a considerable gap between the formal wording and the effectual applications of it. Some things are interpreted very narrowly, some very broadly; some very strictly, and some very permissively.. Individual people's views differ, and the consensus is affect by which individuals show up at a given argument. Every one of us who participates in these arguments has a different view of it. That said, there are some constants: the clearest example is that BLP tends to be interpreted strictly and expansively (more broadly than I really think justified); copyvio also strictly (and again more broadly than I think necessary--we are much less permissive than US Law about fair use); most speedy criteria somewhat more broadly than they are written; WP:V is often disregarded unless someone protests,
The result, of course, is an encyclopedia full of inconsistencies, with consequent difficult for new users in figuring out just what is permitted. But this is inherent in the underlying working method of the encyclopedia -- we make our own rules, we make what exceptions we please, and there is no person or group that who can definitively settle disputes about content. The only reason this works is because of mutual tolerance, including the rule that admins must follow the consensus interpretation whether or not they like it. There is consequently a strong feeling against individuals who try too insistently to make a point overemphasizing any one thing--they disturb what little equilibrium we have. Working with deletion processes involves tolerating an especially large amount of ambiguity and stupid decisions. Those who want a more predictable environment, would do better to work on vandalism or copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been very cordial. Do you have any thoughts about my new ANI? Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Commented,. I think at this you will learn more by just watching some AFD discussion than by asking questions. watching is safe, but watch a good while before you start to comment there. The best course for you at the moment, however, is just to do something else for a while, like write or improve some articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I will be back editing and writing draft articles forthwith, but I won't put any new articles into userspace until I feel that I can stop looking over my shoulder for deletionists. You know, I lurked at MfD for about a week, on and off, without commenting, and really felt that I grasped the letter of the policies. Now I understand the letter plays into my own idiosyncrasies, and isn't the main thing that counts. But my reason for lurking in the first place? Fear of deletion lol. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for reviewing my newly created article and encouraging a new editor like me. Regards Yavarai (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


What is the preferred format to reference CVs? I would think external link rather than in line citation, but thought I would ask. Article in question is Robert R. Caldwell. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I usually add both. It's both a RS for most purposes, and a proper external link. I also of course add an EL to their web page at the university, but often the CB is not linked from there. I consider the formal CV a much more authoritative source than the university website. The formal DV id sn officisal document, and people get hired on the basis of it. In 11 years here there has only been one case of a false (or even misleading) cv for an actual academic. (politicians are another matter). For the university website, department PR staff sometimes have a role in it. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


You stood out as the sole user who I thought may be possibly amendable on this whole draft article ordeal. Part of the reason I've chosen to not continue it is a belief that nothing I produce, at least by myself, will be satisfactory to the detractors and cynics who have opposed some of my past additions and for whom I was confident would resume this pattern. I did want to ask what qualifies a person to receive a sub article; do the Early life of Frank Sinatra and Early life of Joseph Stalin exist because the main articles are long? I've found myself perplexed by that question since that happen, and I'm seeing fit to live with the mystery. Informant16 June 2, 2017 'still needs reply

A cup of coffee for you!Edit

  Thanks for reviewing my article about Sukhdev Rajbhar. Regards Yavarai (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick note on patrollingEdit

Hello! I saw your post here wishing that some kind of keyword sorting might be imposed upon unpatrolled pages to help us patrol pages in our realm of interest. I just wanted to leave a quick note here in case you missed the recent conversation at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard where someone pointed out that you can use User:AlexNewArtBot to do exactly that. For example, here are the search results for the New Jersey keyword search. It'd be nice if this functionality was integrated into the NewPagesFeed interface, but in the meantime it definitely helps me to be more efficient with patrolling. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

yes,I'm aware of that, and a simplified version oft he bot was more or less what I have in mind. . Unfortunately, very few workgroups aare actually active, and fewer actually use i; locating the results within the workgroups is not very efficient for anyone else, as most of us interested in deletion process have altogether too many workgroups to follow.. The bot needs to be used to provide a more systematic approach,with the material in one place.
What I had in mind was either a collection of pages covering all, after the model of categorized AfD discussions, the articles , using the bot , or simply using the bot to add subject keywords to the new article list. I'll comment further. I apologize for not having had the time yesterday--but I've also found that sometimes just suggesting an idea and letting others develop it to be a very effective way of getting interest. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you think a tool that did something like this would be of any practical use? I haven't done any serious NPP myself for about a decade, and it was pretty rare back then for pages to hang around unreviewed long enough for someone to categorize them. —Cryptic 01:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
comment needed DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The New Page Patrol backlogEdit

Your speech here was a masterpiece. A shame it was only on a user's talk page. Relax for 15 minutes and read WP:KNPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I will copy over a revised version somewhere. I think of it as a rough draft, and I was very tired when I did it. I has not followed the previous ANI stuff.

A cookie for you!Edit

  Thank you for editing with Black Lunch Table at Wiki Loves Pride!
Heathart (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-06Edit

What's new?

Integrated Filters

  • The team is moving full speed ahead on a follow-up project to the New Filters for Edit Review beta dubbed "Integrated Filters." The name refers to the fact that we are integrating the Recent Changes tools that currently remain in the old user interface (like Namespace and Tag filters), along with some tools and capabilities from Watchlist and elsewhere, into the new Recent Changes interface.
  • You can get an overview of the Integrated Filters projects, and the general release strategy, on the description page of the project Phabricator board. Among the more interesting new capabilities:
    • Category filters: We'll be adding the ability to filter by category. This is a little tricky, since wiki categories often work in a somewhat counter-intuitive way, with the broadest categories returning the fewest results—because categories like "Science" or "Art" tend to contain not articles but other categories. So we're exploring solutions where a category search will crawl at least a layer or two down the category treat to, hopefully, bring back more useful results. [4]
    • User filters: We're adding the ability to filter by any username, similar to what's available already on the the User Contributions page. [5]

Edit Review Improvements [More informationHelp pages]

Recent changes

  • It is now possible to save your favorite filters sets by using bookmarks. [6]
  • It is possible to filter only the last edits done on a page on the Recent Changes page. [7]
  • A "Watchlisted pages" filter group now lets reviewers use Recent Changes, and all its tools, to patrol changes to pages they've Watchlisted. If you have any feedback about how useful this is nor isn't—especially given that we plan to add the new filtering interface to the Watchlist page — let us know.

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Collaboration team and posted by botGive feedbackSubscribe or unsubscribe.

08:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)



My caution about bands, record labels, fan pages, music, celebrity spin-offs, etc. can be summed up in this diff which resulted in a bit of a rollback'' but it's mainstream thinking nonetheless. Atsme📞📧 15:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I try to not get involved in fan areas. WP has always been very intensive in a few fields, and I think it best to leave them alone, on the basis that others may think the stuff I am interested in to be just as intrinsically unimportant. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I am deeply disturbed by your apparent admission of moral cowardice, DGG. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
If you mean I do not go around here looking for fights, I admit the charge. If you mean that I am prepared to admit that others' views on importance or anything else may be valid although different from my own, I think any other attitude arrogant. If you mean that I do not seek to eliminate articles on let's say wrestling or tv serial episodes or individual pop songs because I do not like the genre, I think my view coincides with the principles of WP. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughtsEdit

Slightly related to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of participants at the Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, but do you have thoughts on listing of electors at papal conclaves. As I mentioned in another thread above I've been working through the 17th century ones, which were largely lists based on self-published sources of the electors. My current technique has been removing the lists because they are overwhelming and not from RS. I'd been planning on going back through when I was done with that century and seeing if I can reconstruct the lists as articles from reliable sourcing, but your !vote there has given me second thoughts. Input is welcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

uncertain--but in any case they would be part of the article. They must also have sources in Catholic encyclopedia, histories of the papacy, etc. I'd expect everyone who participated was usually the subject of at least one biography, and in the 17th & 18th century I would expect almost all of the sources to be in Italian. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts. I asked because more recent ones have it as separate list articles (see Category:Lists of Papal conclaves). I personally side against the inclusion in the article because naming 50-70 individuals with half of them being red links is less than ideal. I am also just generally list averse in articles, which is why I like checking myself on such things. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
But should they be redlinks? It seems to me that this makes it obvious that there should be articles. I recognize your greater expertise in the area, butsince all bishops even are considered notable here .... DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, most certainly none of them should be red links, though all cardinals being bishops or even all being priests is a 20th century innovation, being a cardinal is notable independent of episcopal status. When there has been a runner-up that doesn't have an article, I've been creating it. I'd do it for all the red links, except I don't have the language skills to do more than the more notable runners-up. I believe the 20th century model we have of not listing all of the individual electors in articles is probably ideal stylistically, but your comment at the AfD above made me reconsider whether the 20th century model of listing them separately was ideal. Following this conversation I think what I would probably settle on as the ideal is mentioning within individual biographies what elections the subject was a part of. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking exactly the same. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayU IndiaEdit

  • I have highest of regards on your knowledge of Wikipedia. I am highly participative in your AfD. But this one i do not agree on various grounds.
  • You have deleted the One of the Biggest Fintech startup in India. Its like deleting PayPal or Ebay from Wikipedia. There might be article quality issue, but this is no PR stunts, if you even know India, this is by every means follow standards to Encyclopedia or Wikipedia. It is Textbook notable, I will not be surprised if students are being taught in schools taking examples of PayU.
  • I know you are very senior and not biased. But are you see every Indian startup or company as advertising. I can show to over 1000 Americans companies here with baseless, blatant promotions, and ridiculous Press coverage being protected in the name of GNC or some other Wikipedia policies.
  • Even you have protected many American articles which I have AfD, on what grounds, just because they are covered in Media? or they are American?
  • You are an Admin, and this decision does not make any sense. By every means there are some Startups in India which deserves the place here. Else i will be first one to nominate them.
  • I am not advocate of any articles here, not for Indian neither for American, but it should be treated similar, if its Indian startup or an Indian Entrepreneurs does not make them automatically non-notable by their place.
  • I can give you list of Ridiculous US startups you have protected without any significance as they have, PayU and few others are not promotions, It is a history of Payment.
  • You are very intelligent making decision, i will still be participating removing the spam as you tag them. No offence just my view, you are biased in many places, no one can be perfect, neither you are. Sorry If i offended you, but I can not agree on few decision of yours. Light2021 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Light2021, It is always appropriate to challenge me to explain myself. True, some people here don't like it, but that's a little silly, because this is a place where it is expected and a necessary part of our manner of working. I will always take something like this seriously and give the best answer I can. What's more, sometimes I'm just plain wrong!

I must follow consensus when I close. My role in closing is merely to judge what the consensus of reasonable arguments is, and state it. I may not instead close according to my own opinion. No admin may do that. (Some have been known to do so nonetheless, but it's quite wrong, it is called here a Supervote, and such decisions are usually reversed at Deletion Review)
If I disagree with the consensus, I have 4 choices only: instead of closing, I may give my own opinion, or I may pass it by and let someone else close, or I may relist for further discussion, or, if the consensus is clear enough, I may close it according to the consensus as expressed.
the consensus here was clear. Most of the experienced users thought the references insufficiently independent or insubstantial. If that's what they think, rightly or wrongly, that's still the consensus. It had already been relisted once, and it is rarely useful to relist again.
I do not see Indian companies as likely to be non-notable. I do see them as relatively difficult to prove notability by the standards we use, because I consider articles on companies in Indian newspapers as very likely to be PR. I also see most articles on American companies or organizations of any sort in most newspapers as likely to be PR, and I have so argued when relevant. There are more Indian companies with promotional articles being submitted these days, in part because more American companies have learned not to try for articles here. But , as you observe, there are a great many that got into WP in earlier years, and we have not yet removed all of them.
In both cases, I judge by the content. If several articles repeat the same words, they're almost certainly copying it from the press release. If they interview the CEO, and let him say whatever he chooses about the origin and accomplishments of the company, they're an organ for his PR. If they use terms of praise without analysis, they're PR. If the overemphasize minor accomplishments, they're PR. NGOs and similar organizations are even worse in general, because they use cheaper and therefore less skilled press relations people.
But this is irrelevant in this instance. I did not go back to the original sources here, because I was not trying to evaluate the article and decide what I thought about it. I was evaluating the discussion, which is all I'm supposed to do. Unless the discussion looks really weird, I assume the arguments are made in good faith.
If there are any particular keep closes you think I did wrong, let me know--but remember, I must follow the consensus, not the merits. If you think I've argued wrong in any particular case, that's another matter, because most articles I argue are somewhat equivocal. I try to concentrate on the more difficult decisions, and therefore the consensus will not always be with me.
If there are any particular horrible examples from anywhere, that you think I might want to nominate, just tell me.
But let me give my opinion on the actual notability of this company: I think it might well be notable, but I do not think the article shows it. But I see it's an international company and I think it would be much better to write the article about that company first, with a section on hte Indian company. I see that the entire company (I think) of Naspers, which is notable, and so at least a redirect there would be appropriate. It's already mentioned in the article. a redirect would be appropriate. I will make it for both the international company and the Indian one. . Perhaps I should have seen that originally. But then, perhaps someone could have mentioned it in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for writing and truly appreciate & understand your point. Light2021 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I looked up some of Mr Magoos' sources and the company does seem notable, although it wasn't clear at first that there was a PayU that was the parent of PayU India. Two things struck me with the voting - not everyone seemed to take the time to read his sources, and of course I'm sure you noticed that TwisterSister voted delete twice, although that didn't affect the final tally. I do notice two biases in Wikipedia - one against Indian companies, which as you pointed out is a function of the press being a bit fawning, but also the fact that some of the articles are written with poor grammar. The other is against businesses - I've taken articles that were tagged for notability and added sources and almost verbatim info from the coverage, and seen the articles subsequently tagged for advertising. Nonetheless, are you able to email me the deleted PayU India text so I can see if it can be fixed? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Reposting in cased you missed my request. Do you have access to the PayU India text, and if so, can you email it to me? I'll take a shot at fixing it and will submit it to AfC, and will let you know here when it's up. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
for the work and contribution. Light2021 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Nader El-Bizri AfDEdit

Considering your experience, your input is welcome at (the very messy AfD page) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nader El-Bizri. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate - 20:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello DGG. I understand your concerns and the reasons for placing warning tags. I also believe you are willing to hear my clarifications. I was not aware that in the course of a discussion I should not make edits. I did this in good faith to improve the article and bring more references. Being new to the Wikipedia protocols and technicalities might have resulted in what messily appears as “disruptive edits”. In real-life I am an academic specializing in philosophy. I do not have a connection with the subject of the article, but I am intellectually interested in his research and of other academics in the field. I used to make occasional edits in philosophy on Wikipedia without adopting a name. I had a bit of time after the end of the semester this summer to contribute to Wikipedia. One of my motives was an incident with a graduate student who used Wikipedia as reference and resulted in negative evaluations of the thesis as per the criteria of reputable universities. Given that I occasionally follow the news of the Wikipedia article being discussed, and those of other academics in related fields, I was concerned about a deletion request being made by a user who did not specialize in academia. I hence became engaged in the process. Given that I am new to this, I tried to find ways to bring this to the attention of experienced Wikipedia editors to serve as independent objective referees/assessors. It became clearer to me as the process was unfolding that it has its internal self-corrective integrity - You are clearly an experienced editor, with sound knowledge as librarian. One side-comment to consider (generally and independently form the article being discussed) is that: “chapters” in anonymously-peer-refereed edited volumes (published by Cambridge, Oxford, Routledge, Brill, etc.) are nearly equivalent to anonymously-peer-refereed “journal articles”, this is the case in the humanities, unlike the criteria of the natural, applied, and social sciences) - I was hesitant at first to write this whole clarification, but I then felt it is vital to do so given the integrity editors like you are bringing to the process, and that clarifying my actions ultimately serves the same purpose, although my contribution to Wikipedia will remain minimal given the limited time I am able to dedicate to it. Thanks anyway (AcademeEditorial (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC))
Based on my career talking to academics, publishers, and specialist librarians in all fields of knowledge, such chapters are in general not the equivalent, even in the humanities-- except in a few very specialized fields, or if the chapter is in something really important, and I consequently left one in. But I was exceptionally conservative in removing material--normally we do not even include any journal articles for people in fields where the notability and the academic advancement is primarily by published books, and even in the fields where articles are the most important forms of presentation we normally include only the two or three most cited--and there are some editors here who challenge even that. Taking you at your word, there may be no direct coi, but there is such rampant promotionalism in all areas of the world , including the academics, that even good faith editors tend to write promotional articles as that;s what they've always seen, and unfortunately even in WP. It will be years until we have removed half million or so promotional articles from earlier years when standards were lower, but at least we do not want to add to them.
If you do have time for WP,I urge you to write brief bios of leading people in your subject area. The easiest criterion to meet to show notability is holding a named distinguished professorship. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you DGG for your response. I began now a User-Page and will see how things progress. The summer is easier than later in the year in terms of having some time to making contributions to WP. I prefer to improve existing articles than start from scratch since I am new to the WP technicalities. However, given the tags under my userpage, I will steer away from the article being discussed and leave its handling to experienced editors (AcademeEditorial (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC))

Speedy deletion declined: Colette MazzucelliEdit

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Colette Mazzucelli, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare , you are aware that almost all of these two articles were written by one or more now-banned undeclared paid editors and their multiple socks? DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) As Colette Mazzucelli's article has been around since 2005, edited incrementally over the years, perhaps it should be reverted to the version of 22 March 2016 before the banned editor's major contributions, and their contributions hidden? PamD 07:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)On the other hand, perhaps the edit history of Oren Alexander suggests that perhaps there's another sockpuppet/paid editor to add to the list (it was created by an editor who has made no other edits before or since)? PamD 07:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
If that's the case, they should be tagged with G5. But when I reviewed them, I disagreed that they were so promotional as to be unsalvageable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) How would that work, GorillaWarfare? Criterion G5 is absolutely specific that "To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked". We're just shooting ourselves in the foot here. We know that undeclared paid editing sockpuppet rings exist and that they need to be stopped, yet we can't organise ourselves enough to have any procedure for dealing with them. What's the way forward? Because I think it's time to look for one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
And G11 is absolutely specific that it applies to pages that are "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION". Perhaps you should start a discussion to amend the CSD criteria, if you think articles like these should qualify? Otherwise take them to AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree with GorillaWarfare: I always thought that G11 was about the article's content, not who created it. {{db-g11}} does say in its current form. Adam9007 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, actually so do I – G11 does indeed say those things. But I don't see how G5 could be any more likely to be accepted. Do you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think Doc James has discussed in the past (at some page I lurk at) trying to clarify G5. Currently it is very narrowly construed. For now, I think the best option is simply to keep pointing out in AfDs that WP:N has two components, and that promotion is a valid reason to delete something per WP:NOT, WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14. As someone who is a regular at the NPP conversations, I do think the Sheryl Nields AfD, and the controversy around Marcomgirl in general did a lot to raise the awareness of the issue of promotional editing even within a group that isn't keen on promotionalism to begin with. I continue to think the best way forward at this point is through the AfD process: it is sometimes flawed, but it is a way we can achieve a practical consensus over hundreds of cases rather than a drawn out RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: No, I suggested it just based off of what DGG said above. I didn't look at the editors involved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
just reminding people that "once an article is nominated for CSD, it can be deleted under any applicable criterion" DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
OK. We're still just floundering round in circles here without a proper criterion or policy for dealing with TOU violations. Doc James has reverted to an earlier version of this particular page, as PamD suggested above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment So the question how do we interpret "while the user was actually banned or blocked" in the G% criteria? As I have said previously in this case User:Susana Hodge is not the master it is just the oldest account we have found to date. Just look at their first edit. They will have prior blocked accounts and just because we only get CU data for the last 3 months does not mean they do not exist. We can come to obvious conclusion and for these types of cases I occasionally do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The way forward is to hold to the principles, not to the often contradictory guidelines that have developed around them. To start with, WP is an encyclopedia in contrast to a medium for advocacy. The two are incompatible. The best practical approach to this is what I've been saying explicitly at AfDs, and what I've actually been doing for the last ten years: either immediately rewrite the article or delete it. Anyone who argues that an article can be fixed, needs to prove it by fixing it, not just by hoping somebody will eventually.
G11 is necessarily somewhat subjective, and two experienced people (such as GW and myself) can still differ in whether an article falls under it. That's why no admins delete G11 single-handed. I make 5% errors, let's say for argument's sake even 10% on the more difficult cases; let's say another more conservative admin makes 2%. Having both of us do it, gives 0.2%, 1 in 500 , which is an error rate as good as we can hope for.
But since it is to some extent subjective, we have to take into account everything that affects how we look on it, and that does include the purpose of writing, which can often be implied by who it is who has worked on it. I think it is a reasonable assumption that articles by paid editors will almost always be promotional , because that's what people pay for. (Not 100% of the time, so some will need a discussion.) I also think it a reasonable assumption that people caught socking will have been socking earlier, and likely to have been banned for it, even if we haven't spotted it. More generally, I think that the terms of use means that articles by undeclared paid editors have no justification for being in WP. In removing them, we should use all applicable processes (fairly and properly and transparently and with checks from those who disagree, as always; we can interpret, we shouldn't distort). DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

AfC / Draft article copied into mainspaceEdit

Hallo David, Could you have a look at Joyce Stevens and Draft:Joyce Stevens? She seems clearly notable (Member of Order of Australia, subject of several articles and obits), and a lot of changes have been made since the draft was last rejected as "appears to read more like an advertisement " and as lacking sources.

The mainspace article appeared fully-formed today with edit summary "(Created new page entry for Joyce Stevens based on a draft made by another editor.) " That obviously isn't right - copying within Wikipedia without real acknowledgement to the editor who's done all the work. But I'm not sure what the protocol is when the copying is also bypassing the (horrible) AfC process. I hope you can do something to help! Thanks. (Incidentally, if the Submission Declined message of 28 June is from a template then the template needs to be fixed as it doesn't seem to make sense: "...should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."??? If the subject being discussed is anything other than a fictional character, who's "the creator of the subject..."?) PamD 15:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

anyone can move a draft . Sometimes a move without using the AfCH process is necessary--I do it when the AfCH macro doesn't work, which for me is about half the time. But this was done by copypaste, which is almost never necessary, and we normally try to fix copypaste moves by redoing them properly. I will take care of that. For copying within WP we normally just correct the attribution; in this instance, doing the move properly will take care of that. She is clearly notable. The article does have a promotional done, but it seems to be based upon the tone of the tributes to her after her death, and seems fixable. I've revised the draft & moved it to mainspace.
the wording is the wording of the template. It obviously needs some adjustment. The AfC templates are in general terrible, but my efforts to try to get the fixed within the Afc process over the last few years have consistently failed--there has always been some excuse for not doing them. I will make another try at it. The real solution is to redo the entire AfC and NPP process, as Kudpung has been trying to do for several years. The problem is that it seems to require assistance from the WMF programmers, who have their own ideas about how we should do things. Some of the people involved have sometimes not been very willing to actually cooperate. At one point I was thinking of listing the AfC pages at MfD. In the past, before the RfC system was fully developed, that method was sometimes used effectively.
But for any system, we depend on the quality of the participants, & the quality of one of of the reviewers of this article is known to be a problem. I'm trying to deal with it without banning him from afc altogether.
and thanks for your further fix-up. As is obvious, I was trying to get this quickly to avoid confusion, but i see from the eds talk p. I wasn't quite quick enough. I left a comment there that I hope will be encouraging. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - but you left your comment on my talk page accidentally, not her's! PamD 22:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
PamD, although it can't happen fast enough for me, I think we've achieved a lot (by Wikipedia standards) since I started the ball rolling in Esino a year ago. I am convinced that merging AfC and NPP is the way to go because with a few tweaks the Page Curation system software can easily do both tasks. This would be a 'soft' deprecation of AfC because the Drafts would appear as such in the feed and the AfC team would simply migrate to using a the NPP GUI. There are half a dozen other advantages that I won't go into here, although I have had to temporarily full protect the AfC user list again.
Due to the pressure I and now other editors have exerted recently, the WMF has now done volte-face on some of its ideology based arguments, now accepting a more pragmatic approach instead, which leads me to assume that when we ask for Curation to combine the relatively simple elements of the AfC helper script, the devs will probably do it. The only real resistance is from the AfC users who have no better argument than simply wanting to keep their independence. Once we have the results of the upcoming ACtrial, we'll know more because it directly affects both systems of new article quality control. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I haven't been involved in AfC for ages now (aside from just bouncing stuff in their direction when a creator gets upset that their company / band / friend / autobiography was deleted) - are there really individual fiefdoms? I've never been comfortable with the whole idea of AfC as a project in the first place, it's a process that complements NPP as one whole workflow for new topics (or if it doesn't, it should). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles about academicsEdit

In section '"Articles" about academics' in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not you wrote an elaborated treatise on WP:NPROF. IMO it is quite useful. Why don't you put it in an essay? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I will work on it -- it needs some supplementation. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Touching baseEdit

Hi DGG: Just letting you know, despite some disagreements we have in AfD discussions, I never take matters personally, and view AfD discussion simply as what they are, a forum for debate about Wikipedia articles. My stance is typically to be as objective and fair as possible, to ensure the highest standards of accuracy. In part, this is a reason why I provide sources in AfD discussions, rather than simply stating "keep - meets gng" or "delete - fails N", etc. This serves to provide an accurate overview regarding a topic's potential notability, or lack thereof. Ultimately, I base my commentary at AfD upon research and facts, avoiding conjecture and subjective rationales. When I walk away from a debate, and when a discussion is eventually closed, I move on, with no hard feelings whatsoever at any time. I wanted to let you know this because the mode of communicating on Wikipedia via typing can be impersonal, whereby one's intentions are not always easy to express or convey.

After seeing you at AfD for some time now, I understand your stance about some company articles, that some of them are not needed in the encyclopedia. I have no problem with your stance, even though I don't always agree with it, but this is relative to each individual article for me, rather than as a macro-level philosophy. In other words, I assess each topic individually, per the merits of that particular topic relative to notability, whether or not an article is promotional, and if so, to what degree (e.g. fixable or a WP:G11 situation), etc. I am also aware that some news sources are derived from press releases, just so you know. You'd be surprised at how many news articles from my searches that I don't provide in AfD discussions, per obvious PR ties. I find myself continuously skipping over articles from internet searches that are not appropriate to establish notability. Sometimes, one has to go through ten or more Google search pages to find one or two usable sources. North America1000 16:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Small differences (or even fairly large differences) in the notability standard do not greatly harm the basic usefulness and values of the encyclopedia. Almost any general position on notability can be justified. Most disputed articles can be reasonably argued in either direction, and the actual question is which articles are worth defending--and which are most in need of removing.
But with respect to promotionalism, any compromise here will tend to destroy not just the usefulness but the basic values of the encyclopedia; if we become a vehicle of promotional content we have no purpose--Google does it better. And there's no reason volunteers would be interested in doing for free what they might get paid for. The essential group of articles that should not be improved or defended are those that are of a basically promotional purpose--especially those likely to have been written by undeclared paid editors. The people who write such articles should if misguided volunteers be educated and if paid, removed from WP. The only possible exception is if an article is so essential that the encyclopedia would be defective without it, and if it would be much easier to rewrite than to start over. Even here I am undecided whether it would be always best to first delete the history and then eventually rewrite.
To the extent your work--however skillful-- is helping such articles remain, you are acting against the principles of WP. Your view undoubtedly differs, but I'm using my priviledge on my own talk p. to close the topic here. We've both plenty of opportunities to say it elsewhere, and neither of us is shy about using them. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. In closing, I'll just say that what is considered promotional is in the eye of the beholder. As an editor and WP:COMPANIES member, I pay close attention to maintaining neutral pov and prose when contributing to company-related articles. I'm definitely not here to promote anything. Regards, North America1000 04:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
the actual last post on this thread: you are not editing for promotional purposes, but you are helping the people who are accomplish their goals of getting an article in wp. Even if the article at the end is not promotional, you are helping people editing against the terms of use not get their article deleted. And you are helping companies get an article who would not otherwise be noticed here. I consider such editing a danger to the encyclopedia, and I will try to diminish the effects when I can. DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability questionEdit

Hello. I came across this article, Social Bite. It appears to be a notable non-profit and some of its claim to notability is this has garnered notice from some A-list Hollywood celebrities. However, after I stopped being enamoured for a bit, I noticed the coverage seems to be based on recycled press releases that have made their way into the Scottish newspapers. My own research led me to a group of articles that seem to be recycling the same press release (see this).

So my question is how best to deal with this? Maybe this is not a notable topic, because, in essence, the topic lacks independent coverage. Or maybe it is notable? I am also pinging @SwisterTwister: to hopefully also offer an opinion. Thanks in advance to both of you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't asked but I will answer briefly anyway. Looks notable IMO, regional (not local) importance with RS coverage. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Steve Quinn, I'm usually very wary of such enterprises, but in this case the sourcing seems to be decent enough. Press release-based/inspired or not, they've gained coverage in reliable and notable papers, and that is what matters. My 2 cents. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite so sure--organizations like this live by publicity. This is a press release, not an NPOV article. But it's a high-quality sensible press release--much more apppropriate than the usual stuff thaat gets written here for organizations of this nature. But consider the same contributor's Draft:Josh Littlejohn -- the 2 articles are part of the same press campaign -- and the bio one is nowhere near as good because it's less focussed, and falls into the common PR style of using a string of very short paragraphs--which is at WP diagnostic of either a press release or an inexperienced good faith contributor naive writer who doesnt yet understand how to write an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh sure it's definitely a publicity campaign. But it appears to have become a notable publicity campaign. The Sun for instance has slightly different coverage of the celebs involved and doesn't use the founders quotes in the press releases at all. So it's not straight up churnalism. I actually based my quick judgement mainly on the names of the sources, and on the award issued by The Guardian; our convention is that if the issuer of the award is notable, then the award probably is too. If I'm reading DGG's tone accurately, then neither of us is fond of the article, but chances are it would survive AfD easily. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
yes, that's what I was trying to say: there are so many worse ones to work on removing. But I will probably nominate the bio on Littljohn for deletion if it reaches mainspace in its current condition. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Not trying to be a jerk, but doesn't an MBE satisfy WP:ANYBIO criterion #1? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
While MBEs are handed out as long-service awards to middle ranking civil servants, No. For other recipients like Olympic medallists, the MBE is a consequence of being notable rather than the cause of their notability. Cabayi (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
in more detail, I think we always recognize the rank of CBE (Commander) -- and higher-- as notable; there are according to Order of the British Empire only 6980 Commandeers. The next lower, the OBE (Officer) has 858 appointments each year; the MBE (Member) 1484 peer year. MBE , at the bottom, we include in the article, but it doesn't contribute much to notability; OBE contributes to notability but doesn't amount to presumptive notability. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Greetings in MontrealEdit

Hi DGG, thanks for coming to chat after the Undisclosed Paid Editing meetup yesterday. The person who had been sitting next to me was, I think, User:Rachel Helps (BYU). We didn't have our badges on so I didn't realize it was you. I've always admired your perspectives and I hope to see you again at the conference. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

by that time of day, many of us didn't. I'll me here all the way to the end--and if you don't see me otherwise, look for me at lunch. Today I'm also clear the end of the afternoon. DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I was there but I left early. I have circular glasses if that helps. It was an interesting discussion! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorting by size of edit - not exactly, but maybe close enough?Edit

In one of our many hallway discussions, you mentioned the desire to see edits sorted by size of edits. While you have copied the edit history into a spreadsheet to do this sort, that's pretty cumbersome. I wondered if the revision history statistics were sortable and it turns out they are. This isn't exactly what you wanted because it gives you the total added bytes by user as opposed to by individual edit but it might be close enough for you purposes.


The link doesn't seem to save the sorting but if you go down to the top editor section you can sort on "added (bytes)"--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a start. Thanks for the help. (Sorting in an external spreadsheet is for anything substantial a very cumbersome solution, it is a backup for missing features in many places, on and off WP.) DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!Edit

Thank you for looking out for people, not the software.

Bearian (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Seconded; we need more leaders like you who prioritize community, healthy and functional process, and integrity. Here's a basket of bedding for your new goat. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
== A Little Help from my Friends @WikimediaNYC ==
Hey User:DGG, Thanks for continuing to offer your help as a senior contributor to WP. I have not been diligent about rewriting my significant edit here. Here was the last difference between my edit and the revert:
Any suggestions for tactics in my expository writing style or my persuasive writing in negotiation with admins would be appreciated. sheridanford (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

sheridanford (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

this will need a relatively complicated response. It will take me a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
still to do

Essay on UserpageEdit

I like your essay, but noticed one point about people not declining based on lack of inline citations. In the last 6 months there have been over 700 such AfC declines Can we eliminate that as a reason to decline? I believe AfC is far too tough to pass, forcing the new editor with a notable topic to fully develop and format it, when they are a newbie without the skills and maybe not the interest. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

all or almost all of them are BLPs, which really do need them to survive. It is our policy that they must be supplied. I can understand using it as a reason for these, if the only source is a very general one, or if most of the article seems to be unsourced entirely. Many of the ones where it is used wrongly are older ones--the list includes those where it was ever used as a reason to decline, not just the ones where it is latest reason. , Checking a few, most of them should just be given another reason, some should be removed entirely, and a very few accepted to mainspace. or removed entirely. I don't think we should remove the reason, but we should modify the wording to specify it applies to biBLPs only. Has anyone figured out where the text for the template is stored? It used to be hard-coded. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Here, I believe. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Ishall be proposing an umber of changes, some to reduce hostile wording, a few to align with actual policy, and one additional category: nn-spam. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Good. Quite a few pages come through as Blank. I consider them test edits and nominate them for deletion G2. The Blank and Test reasons should reflect the idea they are tests and will be deleted. Shorter and less redundant wording would be great too. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I suppose you mean removing redundant wording? Then we're talking about a complete rewrite almost from scratch. I can do that, but it might be better to fix a few obvious problems first. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
At least on the ones you are rewording. I'll look into these too. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

Didn't realize you were still around good to see a username I recognize still after my self imposed wiki break.

Whispering 22:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Where I run into trouble getting my sea legsEdit

Ernst-Georg Drünkler - clearly controversial but I would think encyclopedic because we do have List of German World War II night fighter aces. Who on earth would want to memorialize this person considering the cause? At the same time, when I login, my biases are left behind, and my thought process is focused on NPOV as an editor of an encyclopedia. Were it not for 30 years experience honing a NPOV, I probably would have moved on and left this bio in the NPP queue (where it's been since 2011) for someone else to deal with, but that's not me so here I am, again looking to you for guidance. A GF editor redirected the article but the redirect was reverted. On the TP, there is a response to the redirect. My question is, as a NPR do I mark it as reviewed? It appears to me that it may have escalated beyond NPP, and now requires admin attention. Atsme📞📧 03:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

There have been some long discussions about articles like these, and the article talk page reflects it. The article may have remained in the NP queue, but it has been worked on; various people have tried to deal with it before you, and are trying now. There is no reason not to mark it as reviewed--we mark as reviewed when we have tried to deal with the problems, not waiting until we have been successful.
The general way to look at this is promotionalism. The problem is that we have no enforceable standards for article content; all our processes can enforce is whether or not there will be an article. Thus we have been successful only in removing the fluff and promotionalism in those fields that few here care about--while leaving it in for popular celebrities. We are also susceptible to pressure groups--even one or two really determined people can get their way until the clash head-on with other equally determined opposition. In this case, there is effective opposition, from most of the members of the MILHIS Wikiproject, who are very effective in enforcing their standards.
After trying to cut excessive articles in various fields if I keep getting reverted, I have sometimes taken them to AfD, saying : promotional, and cannot be fixed by normal editing because efforts to remove the promotionalism have consistently been reverted. This argument has sometimes worked. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thx, DGG - very helpful. Atsme📞📧 19:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

When does "affiliated" morph into "paid"?Edit

Hi DGG. I've received no answer to my query to this user about potential paid editing on behalf of BrandTotal. However, she later stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark marketing, that she is "affiliated" with the company in question. My strong impression from the nature of the edits and her previous usernames is that she is not simply "affiliated" but an employee of the company and may well work in the marketing department. The slick jargon in the article in its original form (especially the "Origins" section) is pure PR-speak. Before I pursue this with her, and as a question in general, if she were indeed an employee holding that position, does it count as "paid editing"? Judging from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure, it seems a bit of a grey area. The article may well be deleted in which case I won't bother pursuing it, but it would be useful to know for the future. Paging also Doc James. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore If one's job at a company is marketing than ones work on WP with respect to that company is paid editing. I will block those in the marketing departments of companies who do not disclose based on the TOU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow! That's fast service, Doc. Thanks. I'll keep that in mind for future encounters and for this case if the article is kept (unlikely) or moved back into draft space (possible). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I consider that it is also paid editing if it is part of a person's job, or assigned to a person as part of their employment, regardless of what the position is called; but with someone in the marketing dept it will always be assumed to be that person's job. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


I think that this comment of yours on a user page was instead intended for the corresponding talk page. However, I suggest that you skimread the depths of this user talk page before moving it there. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think he was trying to make a good faith effort to contribute. Though we of course do not like autobios, they are not prohibited, and his was very close to appropriate; Google Scholar shows him highly notable, both for the papers and the major textbook. The block seems an over-reaction to a new ed. who makes mistakes, and whose initial effort was given an altogether incorrect AFC review. I will just write the article myself based on the official CV etc DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

'not yet done

Question about referencesEdit

Hi, DGG - with regards to a list of monuments and memorials, I have a few questions:

  1. Statues: how does one verify whether or not a statue was created in honor of someone for a single notable event, or for their life's history or for service to their country, etc.? I realize the plaques should provide details of the memoriam but what if there's just a name? Is there a way to look up the dedication and if so, what references would one look up? Example: A statue of Sam Houston in the Statutory Hall in Austin, TX. The memorial honoring his birthplace says noted soldier and statesman, so would it be appropriate to use that memorial in an article titled Monuments and Memorials of the Battle of San Jacinto?
  2. Naval ships: when a ship is christened and named in honor of a notable person, is there a reference to look up the reason the ship was named in that person's honor - such as a heroic deed, or a long career, etc.?
  3. If a plaque, statue, national park, battleship, street, etc. is named after a notable person, shouldn't that memorial only be included in whatever WP list corresponds to the honor? For example, a memorial was constructed and named in honor of an Admiral who served courageously for 45 years in the US Navy. That memorial would properly be included in List of US Navy Admirals. But what if he also served 4 years in the Foreign Legion and no memorial was created in honor of his service there. Should that same memorial be included in Lists of Monuments and Memorials of the French Foreign Legion?
  4. What if there is no plaque or other identifying feature on a statue that defines the honor and gives only the person's name - is there a way to look up why the statue memorialized him?
  5. Would it be considered WP:OR to include a statue in a list article for a specific cause without verifying the honor was actually for that cause?
  6. Should the statues, ships, memorials, monuments, etc. be cited to a RS to verify that it belongs in the respective list?

Thanks in advance, Atsme📞📧 05:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC) to respond

You were rightEdit

Your comments regarding paid editing are quite interesting - especially since I am applying for a WMF grant to fund a Wikimedian in Residence at Pitt. On the project grant page, an editor told me that I was asking for funding so that I would be be a 'paid' editor. I am still trying to figure out this point of view. I can see that creating content related to the University may be considered paid editing, but is creating content on user pages, talk pages, template pages, category pages and topics unrelated to the University considered paid editing? Barbara (WVS)   18:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   18:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

it's a special form of paid editing which we usually consider benign,and is exempt from the usual rules unless it's abused. It can be abused--for example, by making references only or predominantly to university sources for material which is not unique there. There is no reason not to declare it as if it were ordinary paid editing, on both the article talk p and on your user p. Doing so has no down side. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for all your work as an admin and an ArbCom member. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Request on 19:32:53, 16 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission...Edit


But let me ask you, why do you "need" an article? The only reason a person would need an article is in order to promote themselves or their activities--and that sort of promotion is not permitted in WP; it s a violation of our basic policy WP:NOTADVERTISING. I see nothing in the existing draft to indicate that the person isa major government official whp would generally be considered appropriate for an article.
I must also alert you that there are people who write articles in what they claim to be a professional manner, but almost all of them do not follow our terms of use because they do not disclose their conflict of interest, and most of them are in reality incapable of writing an acceptable non-promotional article. Either reason alone would be sufficient cause for the articles they submit to be immediately deleted as soon as they can be identified--we delete dozens of such articles every day. If you use such a service you need to determine that actually follow our terms of use. Any service that claims special access or permission or administrator assistance is not following our rules, because no administrator or person with special permissions is permitted to use those facilities for paid work at WP. And as if this were not bad enough, be aware that some services have the despicable practice of accepting payment and writing the article, but will then challenge the article using another name, and ask additional payment for defending it. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sonne der GerechtigkeitEdit

Sonne der Gerechtigkeit, sun of justice in our time. I had some hopes that you wanted to restore the article history of the other hymn, bringing back the 2005 beginning and the history, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Steve Collins (nutritionist)Edit

Alas, 2017-11-10T15:20:45‎ Atlantic306‎ . . (deprod- not an uncontroversial deletion as was approved at AFC). Surprised/not surprised this made it out of AfC. ack, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you can't win 'em all. Hopefully any negative trends as far as reviewing (or reviewers) goes can be reversed before we start accepting real junk. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
We will never get things 100% correct at AfC any more than we do at NPP or AfD. But certainly the error rate at AfC remains higher than elsewhere, and the only way to improve it means following up editors who consistently make wrong decisions there to remind them of the standards. I have actually received negative criticism for checking up on people's accepts and declines, but I think people who concentrate of checking up are necessary at all decision points--and that is in fact the primary reason I gave in asking to be an admin. (One thing that can help is a quick screening of drafts the first day they are entered to remove obvious copyvio and promotionalism before they get any further. I've started doing this for G11, and I see others are also, especially for G12.) DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hear, hear! (The page in question went the way of all good spam.) If there is a tool/method to help me screen drafts the same day as they are entered, I would enjoy using it. And screening is needed to assure quality. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
DGG, to continue on from a thread in another location (and to ping off your "higher error rate" comment) - is your comment based on statistics or just "I see a lot of AFC-accepted pages at AFD"? It seems like everyone except me (who is the one tracking all of these stats) thinks that AFC has this huge error rate in acceptances, and I cannot figure out why. I haven't run the numbers, so I cannot comment on how accurate we are as a group. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven't tried to collect figures for many years now, because there is too much ambiguity in what to measure. There are 3 ways to define error-- a/ a decision which is reversed at a later stage, b/ a decision which is hopelessly wrong, and c/ a decision which I think should have been otherwise. I usually mean by error a mix of criteria b & c, thinking of c as violating the consensus, not just disagreeing with what I think the consensus ought to be. There are also Type I and Type II errors--in this context, I think of a type I error as an incorrect rejection of an article, Type II as an incorrect acceptance. Going by impressions, I consider the rate of errors at AfD to be between 5 and 10 % in each direction. At NPP, probably about 10% incorrect acceptance and 5% incorrect rejection, as Speedy is applied very conservatively; At AfC. I think there's about 5 to 10% incorrect acceptance, and about 10 to 20% incorrect declines, as the unfortunate practice has been to decline for trivial reasons. The prevailing type of error there is the opposite of NPP, because NPP besides being conservative, are systematically reviewed by an admin. But no, I do not have numbers.
The real problem is not the error rate, but the disagreement on whether to fix or delete promotional articles. Before paid editing became so conspicuous, I always tried to err on the side of fixing, and now I do just the opposite. Bad articles are less of a danger than paid editing, which corrupts the entire process of building an encyclopedia, and trying to decrease it is a greater priority. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodils English School, SanjaynagarEdit

I'm interested in your take on this deletion discussion. You stated when endorsing the 'Keep' at deletion review that "All comments except one were keep". I don't believe that is accurate, since neither Cordless Larry, nor Pburka – nor I for that matter – made comments that could possibly be interpreted as "keep". In any case, I thought that AfD was decided on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes.

You also claimed that "all the arguments were sufficiently policy based", and yet every single keep vote was a variation on the theme "the school exists therefore it's notable" or "we always have kept secondary schools in the past, so we should keep this one". Are you aware that the February 2017 RfC specifically discredited both of those arguments? In addition, the keep arguments were based on an earlier version of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which is not even a guideline, let alone policy. Even being charitable, WP:NPOSSIBLE is a guideline, not policy. And yet the 'delete' arguments were firmly based on policy: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." and "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ... Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability." The article was written by a serial adspammer using only the school's own website to create the content. Since then, there has been found nothing more than the entries for the school in a couple of directories and a two brief sentences in The Hindu noting their exam results one year. That is nowhere near enough third-party sourcing to base an article on.

If you feel able to, I'd be interested on how you feel you can refute (i) the strength of argument where policy disagrees with an essay; (ii) the results of an RfC; and (iii) the policy requirements that all articles must be based on reliable, published secondary sources. --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(1)The effective policies and guidelines are the way we agree to interpret them, not what is written. What is written is not systematic, and there are many contradictions. Given these, and given also the differences in how people interpret, at any AfD except the most obvious it is possible to construct a decent argument in any direction. I think people generally make a global opinion on whether WP should or should not have the article, and then look for the appropriate arguments.
(2) The RfC, as I explained, did not say what you assert it said. It said there was no consensus to change the practice of keeping school articles. It also said there was no consensus that commonoutcomes was a sufficient argument. I do not know of any way to really harmonize these two conclusions, so confusion about them is not just understandable but inevitable.
(3) My view that we should continue the practice of keeping articles on secondary schools articles is simply an empirical compromise with not keeping primary school articles. It needs no other defense than being a workable way of avoiding spending most of our AfD energy on the the disagreements. The goal is to build an encyclopedia, and sometimes that means not focussing on issues that we cannot settle. The secondary reason is that some degree of consistency is a virtue, and back when I first came here and we did debate every primary and secondary school, the results were not much better than random. You will notice I am not arguing that either primary or secondary schools do or do not meet the standard of GNG--back when I did, the argument was that if we had sufficient access to local sources, we could show notability, but that the effort in obtaining them was not worth it in either case.
(4)It comes down to a choice--either accept the compromise or debate not just every secondary school in the world, but every primary school in the world also.
Further discussion should go elsewhere. But I don't really see the point of it--we are both going to repeat what what we have already said.We are not goign to convince each other, and anyone coming to this question for the first time already has available many full arguments in each direction. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I was interested in what you've said here and also what I found on your userpage about counting !votes in AfD discussions. Taken together you seem to be arguing that (for example) this AfD should have been closed as "keep" because more people !voted keep citing policy arguments than those who !voted delete. Whilst I kind-of see the logic of this position, it doesn't seem to be one shared by the majority of people who close AfD discussions. And I don't know how it would work in practice: surely it is then just a popularity contest. On the other hand, I think this whole idea of "consensus" is problematic. The vast majority of people who edit do not !vote or engage in these debates, so any RfC or AfD is (obviously) going to be a fight between those who turn up. When those parties get into a rut on how to decide between the merits of keep/delete, I can't see how there can ever be consensus. Simply saying that the consensus is that people disagree doesn't seem to adequately address the problem - particularly when closers seem to apply the supposed consensus in different ways. JMWt (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, people can judge consensus in different ways--it is to some extent subjective. But the rule is to go by the consensus of the policy-based arguments, and that is almost always followed, though there is also some subjectivity in judging what is a sufficiently policy-based argument. There is no way in any system to avoid personal judgment in decisions, except by strict vote counting , which we do in only special situations--elections for arb com, decisions by arb com, for example. DGG ( talk ) 13:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Noteable Faculty and Biomedical Engineering Page JHUEdit

DGG, I am a little confused. Can I add references to Nitish Thakor page for example, and is it ok for me to update with more references the JHU BME page? I am currently the Director of Biomedical Engineering and wanted to do for BME what Stanford Computer Science has done and Oxford Computer Science, both have wiki pages and are demonstrating very coherent easy ways to have undergrads and high schoolers just find them easily through Wikipedia.

I dont think I have added anything to date that is not accurate. It isn't our business in the Academy to speak about things we don't have published. Anyway I appreciate reading your notes about "Noteable faculty"; that was very helpful. My criteria which was in error was National Academy. I think essentially it is suggesting the Associate Professors and Full Professors will all likely be noteable because all of them in our department have H-indices that are very high and many publications. Thank-you in advance. Mim.cis (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You do have an obvious conflict of interest; according to common sense you are not the best person to evaluate the appropriateness and balance of the content in the articles about your own organization. According to our rules in WP:COI, you may only make suggestions of the article talkpage, except for fixing obvious errors or updating. Adding the references for the plain facts of Thakor's career is the sort of thing you can do directly; adding references for judgements about him, do on the talk page. ( Be careful about adding content--we give only a brief description of the research and list only the 2 or 3 most cited papers. We regard Research Career Development Awards and the like as grants, not awards, and we do not include them; we also do not include alumni awards from his university. There's no need to pad the CV--Fellow IEEE is sufficient proof of notability.
As for the Department article, I started by restoring some refs to the Department article from earlier versions of the article) Since member National Academy is notable, I found the proper way to add some additional names, even though the articles have not yet been written. However, the history section is still a little heavy with internal detail. It could use some copyediting for compactness. I'll give it a try if I can. You might note the extreme plainness of the other articles you mention.
when you proceed to write articles on the other faculty, do it in Draft Space using the WP:Article Wizard, Make sure you declare your conflict of interest. And I strongly recommend that you do them very cautiously, one at a time, starting from the most notable, and seeing if you run into opposition before you start the nest one.. In judging citations, the key factor is not the h factor by itself-- person A with 50 papers each with 50 citations has h=50; so does person B with 20 papers with 200 citations and 30 with 50, but only person B is likely to be notable. I give you advice to the best of my ability about what is acceptable, but I cannot make final judgments. Anyone who wishes can bring an article deletion request at WP:AFD , and the community consensus makes the decision. Do not be surprised if some people oppose.
I hope this helps. DGG ( talk ) 13:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fair UseEdit

Hello DGG -

I hope you are having a wonderful weekend. I love it in America - so rich life here! I think I will rent a car and go buy things at walmart this weekend.

I appreciate your comments and support. You seem like a very established editor who seems to care about other editors. I am considering creating Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fair Use and I was interested in suggestions on how to go about this, and editors who I can talk to about building this page before it goes live. Any suggestions would be most helpful.

Moscowamerican (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I would advise you against doing this. The enWikipedia policy on how to deal with copyright is not likely to change, and you will be wasting your efforts entirely. There was a deliberate decision early on to minimize the inclusion of material justified only by Fair Use. Part of the reason is that fair use is interpreted much more liberally in US law than it is anywhere else in the world, and we intend our content to be usable internationally. By US law even a full chapter of a non-fiction book would probably be legally fair use in Wikipedia under either the earlier 4 factor balancing test, or the current emphasis on whether it interferes with commercial exploitation. This is more generous than anywhere else, and makes a curious contrast with the US very extended period of protection. There would be sufficient legality to let WP operate legally in the US--it would not be enough to let everyone copy it everywhere. We were also aware that the entire principle of a open license website like ours would be both in principle and in execution very dangerous to some businesses that depend on intellectual property laws for their commercial existence, and we wanted to take no chances in letting them attack us. There is also the realization at the very beginning that we intended to use the US very generous rules on other aspects of free speech to the limit, and that these principles were much more important to us and to the world than fair use. So we wanted to show that we were being zealously law-abiding. And, by and large, this strategy has been enormously successful. It is much too important to take risks that might affect it.
Myself, I do think enWP went to ridiculous lengths in the interpretation. I don't want to go into details of what I think would be a safe rule. because I think there is no chance whatsoever of getting it changed. Every person who works on copyvio to a significant extent in enWP follows the current interpretation, and if you did start an RfC, and a vote were taken on whether to continue it, I am as certain as one can be around here that the current guideline would be strongly supported. (I'll even guess the % result--depending on just what you suggested, it would be between 75% and 95% against the change.) A result like that will only harden the guideline, and prove extremely counterproductive.
Sometimes there is a reason to challenge something even though knowing that one will be totally defeated. The most important reason is to maintain general awareness of the problem, in the hope that there will be eventual change. If one is going to do this, it is only sensible to either select instances where there is in fact continuing gradual change in opinion sufficient to indicate the real possibility of progress, or to select causes which are fundamentally important enough to be worth it. This does not meet either criterion.
As for your own writing, if you are going to use quotations, use them only when we actually need quotations--to establish someone's opinion. Don't use them for sections of articles where your own summary would be as helpful. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


It appears that most long term administrators do not share the same views that you do on treating new editors contributions with the same respect that you mention on your other personal page.

I was interested if there are other administrators like you? If so, who? Thank you in advance. I appreciate all your time and all you do. How can i give you an award? Moscowamerican (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


I don't think I have adequately conveyed my appreciation for your patient explanations of 'how things work' around here. I have learned so much from you. Thank you and Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   06:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Your new talk pageEdit

When I drove by your talk page today, it reminded me of Miami after Hurricane Andrew—I didn't recognize the neighborhood.

My Internet situation is such that I've considered length here at this talk page a feature, not a bug. How do you feel about a Best of DDG archive? — User:Neonorange (Phil) 00:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

you will find these in the topical archives sections listed at the top. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Can we turn it into a podcast?Barbara (WVS)   00:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hear! Hear! — User:Neonorange (Phil) 07:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

AfC decline templateEdit

Hi there, I was mentioning to primefac that I felt the current templates we use for declining submissions could be made more pithy. Seemingly people aren't reading them, or, more likely, ignoring them; and I feel if they were either trimmed up, or made more specific (pointing to SNGs, for example) it may help. Either way, primefac mentioned you also have an interest in this, so I figured I'd reach out to get your thoughts. Thanks in advance. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, thanks for reminding me. I write write at least a sample in the next week or two. Not reading, because I know that when I receive obvious boilerplate that seems to contain material not directly helpful, I stop reading. Also not understanding, because only someone who actually knows how we judge articles could understand the significance of the advice--and only someone with experience here could understand the pages being referred to. And, to be sure, ignoring -- sometimes they don't care in the least about what we require--but I am not sure any change in wording can help that part. . DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, with the holidays behind us I had a quick moment to take a stab at a template rewrite. It's just boilerplate, and I'd like more specific ones so we can point them to respective SNGs, but wanted to get your feedback to see if you feel it's going in the right direction. Thanks in advance. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Read your essayEdit

You certainly are a good teacher thank you for working on the essay you recommended to me on my talk page. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   00:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you know we actually have rules about this stuff? They apply to you, too!Edit

In regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Made to Stick, did you even do WP:BEFORE? I don't think you did. I get the impression that you just spitball decisions on articles to be whatever you think it should be. You might've made some reference to WP:NBOOK in your nomination. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't list it for problems with notability, but promotionalism. I didn't refer to NBOOK because that's not the basis of my nomination. In fact, I think it most likely is notable. If I thought it wasn't I would have said so. I did enough WP:BEFORE to confirm the notability. I am fully aware that I can not discuss the notability of a book without looking at least for library holdings, which are quite high--and having seen that, I assume that there are reviews also.
As you must know by now, I currently care much more about promotionalism than notability. I rarely send to afd any more if notability is the only concern, unless it's really clear. I send promotionalism that doesn't fall under G11. There are enough people dealing with notability , and in any case I consider lack of notability a less critical issue.
I make mistakes. By my estimate, somewhere around 2% of my AfD nominations are errors. (as distinct from those where the consensus disagrees with me) Criticize me when I make the errors--I want to try to reduce my error rate to 1%, and I need the criticism to do that. But not when you just assume I make an error without looking at what I actually said. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so this is the crux of the disagreement. Deletion is not cleanup. I would love to just go around deleting articles I don't like. We have a bunch of articles about minor athletes and movies no one saw and the articles remain because the subjects are notable. So it must be nice to ignore WP:N. I don't think you made a case for WP:DEL4 and it's your job as nominator to make that case. So my charge isn't that you made a mistake, but that your beliefs about deletion are wrong, hence my utter contempt for you as an editor. You are one ARBCOM candidate I definitely regret supporting in the past. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Jesus, dude... I think you're getting a bit snippy with your response here... :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
that's OK; I take comments like this for recognition that I'm getting somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
'A bit snippy' ? It's downright PA. Boomerang for troutman. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung: How is it a personal attack? I have seen AfD noms like what DGG has done considered "bad faith." I'm pointing out that Wikipedia actually has agreed-upon criteria for deletion and DGG seems to think himself above mere community consensus. I agree with Aristotle's adage: He who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander. Anyone who purports to enforce and define the law has to obey the law. Contempt for guidelines and policies indicates unfitness for leadership, in my opinion. Clearly, I am in the minority in my views, which is sad. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Most actual disagreements involving policy are not about what it is, but how to apply it. Sometimes the consensus is pretty stupid, but each of us has a their own view about what that applies to. NOT ADVOCACY is basic policy, but the dividing line between which promotional articles to fix, and which to remove, is a matter of judgment, with a very wide range of plausible views. I do not have contempt for those who take a different view here than I, tho I certainly continue to oppose them as opportunity offers, and I certainly intend my arguments to affect the general consensus on interpretation. WP would not be much harmed by disagreements on whereto draw the line about notability ; it could be destroyed by being used for advertising.
I don't see what ArbCom has to do with it; it is rarely concerned even indirectly with what articles get kept or deleted; there have been a few arb cases about deletion behavior, but they were before my time on the committee. If, hypothetically, there were a supreme board to decide what articles were kept, then people would appropriately vote for the members based on what they thought about deletion-related questions. Whether I'm an arb adds no weight to my !votes at AfD, and I don't see that it discourages people from disagreeing with them. It would be more relevant to ask my views about what constitutes a personal attack, for that arb com does have jurisdiction over.
If I had deleted the article as G11 single-handed without a second admin's confirmation, you might have at least an excuse for a question about my general judgment. But this is just a nomination for a discussion. As I tell beginners, if your view is considered right by the community, the article will not get deleted. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
"But this is just a nomination for a discussion. As I tell beginners, if your view is considered right by the community, the article will not get deleted." The problem is, this is simply not the case. All it takes is a nomination by a highly influential admin (you), and lack of participation (AfD is already a ghost town and has been for years as the noms pile up beyond anyone's ability to track), or participation from deletionists, non-neutral participants, or people with an axe to grind, for a notable article to be deleted simply because nobody, or insufficient people, bothered to do WP:BEFORE, or bothered to click the search links at the top of every AfD. The proper response to a promotional-sounding article is to (A) edit it, or (B) tag it with {{advert}}, {{cleanup}}, or similar tag. The proper response for an article whose citations appear to demonstrate insufficient WP:N is to do WP:BEFORE. It cannot be over-stressed that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. That's why we have cleanup tags.

All of that said, Christroutman's vicious personal attacks here are way out of line and are in violation of the final warning he received here: [8], so by all rights he should be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Softlavendar, that is not how I see my experience at afd. My record of success is not particularly high, partly because -- having no real need to have a perfect record as if I were running for an RfA, -- I can try to see where consensus currently lies by sometimes nominating what I suspect to be marginal cases; the way we work, there is no other way to find out except to try and see & then adjust expectations. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw a nomination or suggest an alternative, as I have done with the one that started this thread. I consider AfD misnamed--it should be seen as Articles for Discussion, and with the current variety of closures, that is more and more what it has become.
There are many regulars who have not the least hesitation in telling me that I'm wrong -- I think in fact some of them find it particularly satisfactory to be able to do so. Many beginners do also, and they can be sometimes correct as well. Of course, it is possible that I may be an adult gorilla who does not realize my own weight--I have never been all that good in judging what people think of me. .
Participation at AfD has been even lower in the past. But even as it is, it's the only process here for quality control that actually works. Again, I may be misperceiving this because I am overestimating how well it works because I have long enough experience there to know how to use it.
But here is the real situation: I am now much less concerned with notability than promotionalism. I do intend to use whatever fair methods I can find to put an end to the practice of undeclared paid editing--and if possible, to convince the community to end all paid editing. The most effective method at my disposal is deletion. (SPI also helps, but I'm just not good at it and have to depend for that part on others). Variations in notability do not actually matter very much, but paid editing will destroy WP by reducing us to an advertising medium. Even if by some miracle we could get paid editing of decent quality, it would destroy WP by driving away the volunteers. That includes me--I will not work here if it stops being a volunteer project, any more than I would work here if it were censored, or if it did not have a free license. Those are the things about WP that are actually important to me.
Consequently, I no longer fully agree that "The proper response to a promotional-sounding article is to (A) edit it, or (B) tag it with {{advert}}, {{cleanup}}, or similar tag. " It remains the proper approach for an article from a good faith editor (GFE). For an article in violation of the TOU, the proper course is deletion. We could remove these from AfD--I will support a speedy criterion; I'd even support it also applying to draft space. (I recognize there are some problems here, because sometimes a GFE will not know better than to copy the style of one of the hundred thousands of promotional articles thinking that's what is actually wanted. The solution is to remove the bad examples--all of them, regardless of how long they've been here, just as we dealt with the unsourced BLPs. It will take a few years.) For good volunteer editors to try to fix such articles makes the matter worse: they're facilitating the undeclared paid editors, they're preventing a real solution, they're doing the work so the people who want to destroy our principles can earn the money. That's suicide, not altruism.
Nor do I fully agree with the essay Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The most effective way --sometimes the only way--to get an article cleaned up over opposition for fans or promotional editors is to list it for deletion. It shouldn't be the first step for an article by a good faith editor, but it works. clumsy as AfD is, the alternative is 3O, which rarely accomplishes anything, or RfC, which can be really messy. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Then, in my opinion, you are, or could be accused of, nominating in bad faith. If you feel or realize that a subject has notability, but are AfDing anyway, then you are nominating in bad faith as many people understand it. Unlike other XfDs, AfD is not "articles for discussion", as you have stated/implied above. It is "Articles for Deletion". By AfDing you are stating or implying that an article on the subject should not exist on Wikipedia. If you are too lazy to edit, and unwilling to tag articles (we also have the {{coi}} and {{undisclosed paid}} tags for the issues you address), but want to remove them entirely based on your subjective opinion of how they are written rather than the notability of the subject and the well-established thresholds of inclusion established by the community, not by a single person .... then you are, in essence, taking "the law" into your own hands. I understand why you are doing it, but it subverts a lot of the established community processes under which the encyclopedia operates. They may be inefficient, but they have been established by community consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Softlavendar: WP:N is clear that simply meeting the GNG is not enough for inclusion. Failure of WP:NOT is grounds for failing WP:N, and that includes WP:PROMO. WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14 also apply here: a notable subject that is promotional can and should be deleted from Wikipedia under existing policies and guidelines, including the notability guideline itself, even if it does not meet the strict G11 criterion. Your view is certainly a view that many in the community hold, but so is David's. The point of AfD is for the community to decide how to apply the principles of Wikipedia as expressed in our policies and guidelines to the case of a specific article. David is making good faith deletion nominations based on promotion. While the community might not always agree with him, it often does. Consensus is built organically through local discussions such as AfD, and the work David is doing here is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"Essentially advertising" is an incredibly weak rationale for sending something to AfD. If he had said "I can find reliable sources for this, but there is so much promotional content, I think we're better off blowing it up and starting over, and as this isn't my topic of expertise, I'm not comfortable doing it, and I can't see anyone else coming forward" then I might be more understanding. If a brand new admin candidate did this, and somebody noticed, they'd get opposed and possibly their RfA would tank. So why should an existing admin get away with things a new candidate won't? You should agree with WP:NOTCLEANUP, as the deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)C)
Ritchie333, "essentially advertising" is one of the basic reasons to remove an article. Of all the rationales at WP:NOT, NOT ADVOCACY is one of the most important, for it is the very basis of NPOV. (By comparison, NOT INDISCRIMINATE, the basis of Notability guidelines, is much less critical.) Articles that amount to advocacy must be removed, and the mere promise to fix it is just as inadequate as the mere promise to fix copyvio or BLP violation. How we do this fundamentally simple thing is of course complicated, and is adjusted to circumstances by changing the written rules and the interpretations--normally, the written rules lag by a considerable amount. The interpretation is whatever consensus has it--there is no other basis for deciding content in WP. It is reasonable of anyone here to try to influence the interpretation, and I knew from the start that my main purpose here was to do that. In some things I have been successful. I always realized success would come slowly, and I think in terms of years. Sometimes change come surprisingly quickly, and there has been a major change in the last year in the extent to which we reject promotionalism and its usual correlate of paid editing. Having already changed what we do, the rules will follow. My style is to let others write them, once I've gotten the change started.
Softlavender, "Nominating in bad faith" is a remarkable term to use for giving my opinion, and then asking the community to determine just where the present boundaries of consensus lie. I have never nominated without the intent and hope of getting something deleted because of WP:NOT. (or, sometimes, referring something where I think there's something wrong but in a field where I cannot decide to the community) Nominating in bad faith means nominating maliciously or to be a nuisance, or based on prejudice, or relying on spa or sock support, not merely having an opinion others disagree with. It can also include nominating repeatedly and persistently despite knowing that the consensus is firmly against one. I try not to do that, tho sometimes I make an error in moving more quickly than the circumstances turn out to warrant. More often I think I make an error by letting things slide, but both are inevitable in anyone doing a large amount of non-obvious work here.
If we are to trade charges, those who try to fix the work of promotional editors, especially promotional paid editors, could be considered complicit in helping them destroy WP. I don't go around accusing my opponents of doing that deliberately, though I do sometimes remind them that such will be the effect of what I consider their misguided work. Perhaps eventually they'll realize; I've changed myself, as I too did not realize the danger initially, and I hope the continuing revelations of the extent of promotional editing might affect them, as it did me.
one of the prerogatives of one's own talk page is the ability to have the last word in an exchange. There will be dozens of opportunities each day to continue elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

fixing promotionalismEdit

...:But more generally, you raise an important point:

the problem of whether to remove somewhat promotional material from promotional articles before listing from AfD is a dilemma. I have come across articles that I try to improve, and then after sharply editing content, decide they are unsalvageable, and take them to afd. If I leave them in their improved but still inadequate state it doesn't give a fair impression of the promotional intent and overall promotional writing. If I return the contents, i am deliberately making the article worse than it needs to be. Since the promotional content can also contain material relevant to notability , this makes the dilemma even more difficult. (What I now usually do is leave it in the improved form and give a link to the original in the discussion).
As we know, there is a disagreement of how strictly to interpret NOT ADVERTISING, and on how bad a article has to be before it qualifies for G11 as requiring fundamental rewriting. My position here has changed over the years from considerable tolerance for anything vaguely notable--though I was always a bit hesitant about local interest material-- to an emphasis on removing promotionalism to discourage the usually paid promotional editing.
There is also a disagreement on the notability of these restaurants, and the promotionalism in them is normally from fans, not paid editors--and it is difficult to write about restaurants at all without sounding a little promotional. As far as WP guidelines go, anyone experienced at AfD could equally easily write a keep or a delete rationale for most of them, so it's basically a question of what extent of local detail we think WP should cover. I have sometimes been tempted to add every restaurant in Brooklyn that got a significant write-up in the NYT. If the current trend holds towards keeping such articles, I may do it yet. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand your concerns. The problem is think is that sources such as Serious Eats or NYT are national notable sources which gives the subject notability, unfortunately these articles would generally be written in a way that praises the subject. I've noticed (not in this case) that some editors tend to remove sources and when sources such as Serious Eats are removed it could make the subject look vastly less notable, as a result the discussion could be skewed. Valoem talk contrib 16:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

restaurant and other reviewsEdit

I'm not familiar with Serious Eats, but I am a close reader of the NYT restaurant reviews. They cover, as would be expected, not every restaurant in the city, but those that are significant in some way: established favorites, currently popular or fashionable, new restaurants from well-known cooks or owners. This inevitably produces a bias towards places of some merit, but, everything considered, the reviews are generally critical, and by no means extremely laudatory. (The number and venom of bad reviews has varied over the years with their different critics).

More basically, essentially any article about any company or professional will have a promotional value. it's a maxim that all publicity is good, and having an article in WP has become regarded as a sign of importance. If we are going to cover anything in the current world, or that affects the current world, the articles will have some degree of promotional effect. This gives us a dangerous influence, about which we must take precautions. The efforts of the PR industry can only be countered by true NPOV editing, and it is absurd to expect any professional or organization to actually write or commission a true NPOV article about themselves. Therefore, we need to consider all coi editors as at least potentially destructive of our values, and, the world being as it is, they will be particularly dangerous when money is involved. The attempt at paid editinghas corruptd too many good editors here, and has attracted a remarkable number of incompetents. More and more, I think the only practical way forward is to remove them. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

consensus at AfDsEdit

Hi DGG! I was reading some of the materials on your user page and it was useful for me to read them. I'. Specially, I would like to know if the materials of "with respect to consensus at AfDs" are induced to your mind by WP's policies and guidelines or it's just a personal interpretation of them? Btw, the paragraph starts with quotation mark but I could not find where it's closed. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 10:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind shedding light on this query? --Mhhossein talk 12:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

still to reply

An interesting thought experimentEdit

Hi again, I was chatting with some folks about an idea that will likely never see the light of day, but I'd like your feedback on it. An outright ban of CORP articles in AfC for a 6 mo trial. I was joking about it initially, but the more I thought about it I'm curious what the outcome would be. If I had to guess, no one would notice other than paid editors. I can't think of people searching Google for "Bizco" and having an erosion of trust because Wikipedia doesn't have it. It also has a potential interesting side effect of preventing companies that haven't been around for more that six months, which is kind of an indirect SNG for CORP. Again, no chance of it being implemented, just thought getting your views on it would be insightful. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I had been thinking of something like that for companies formed after 1990 or thereabouts. There are of course other areas, such as their executives, and all the NGOs, and politicians, and the artists--all of who use paid editors almost as much. But it would be an interesting moratorium. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent idea, makes sense, and there is probably potential for it. Kind of lke an ACTRIAL experiment. Would need some careful thinking out though. @Drewmutt:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Kudpung for your feedback, glad this seems more feasible than I initially thought. Any suggestions on next steps? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Interesting idea: on the whole, it might be a net positive. We'd have to flesh out the specifics, obviously. The other thing is whether or not something like this could achieve consensus and how it would be enforced. A simple decline of all corps? a CSD X criteria? There are also conversations going on now at WT:CORP surrounding increasing the notability requirements for corporations that might be relevant here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The consensus bit seems the biggest obstacle, but I've been trying to rack my brain for any "cost" this would have to WP as a whole, and I can't come up with any. The only debate I could see (which I feel is a weak one) is driving paid editors to more nefarious methods of publishing. If nothing else, people concerned about the AfC backlog should be on board. I'd be fine with it simply being a decline template, something like, "Currently Wikipedia is undergoing a trial where new articles about corporations will not be accepted. Therefore your submission cannot be accepted at this time." Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Possible. OTOH, a new CSD would be unlkely. Getting new CSDs agreed is one of the most challenging aspects of Wikipedia. Everyone knows that I'm a firm proponent of a total ban on PE, Tony mentioned 'baby steps' somewhere not so long ago - this would be one of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
for the two X criteria used so far, they were so rough and ready that there were many exceptions needed; the same would be the case with this. A new general CSD category is not a good idea; it will be more practical to adjust wording on existing ones. (G5 for example) . Similarly for 1990+, I would do it not as a speedy, but as a modification of the SNG, and say specifically that it over=rides GNG. At some point we would really have to deal with the primary obstacle to increasing notability standards, the GNG/SNG comfusion. But I do not think there will be consensus for it at this point.
What there willl be consensus for, is increasing restrictions on paid editors. Proposed wording changes,
1) on WP:COI, lede para: from "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it " to "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are required to disclose it "
2) WP:COI section 1.2, and throughout change all the "should" to must.
3) all new articles on commercial organizations founded after 1990 must go to AfC, and anyone encountering one should move it there. This includes articles by confirmed editors. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -- I would support; possibly with a caveat "for companies launched after X year" -- anyone wanting create an article on a historic company would be able to do so. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not support if it's a ban on entering articles, only if its a requirement to use Draft space / What we need to remember, is that at present we may be in a state of emergency, but the situation is getting better, not worse, because we now do have general awareness of the problem among WPedians.My own preferred place to work remains with individual articles, not wording of policy. Over the years, it's the only way I've had any success. The rewording sometimes comes later, once opinion has been affected by individual articles. Everyone who cares needs to participate in NPP and AfD. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • David, I think you hit the nail on the head here (as usual). In my experience, progress on Wikipedia is only achieved by building local consensus first and establishing something as common practice and standards. What we need to do here is to make people aware of the crisis we are facing with promotional editing, and get the people to care to participate in the two processes that most directly affect it: AfD and NPP. RfCs only work if consensus is preexisting. We have come a long way on this even in the last year, but more progress is needed. That only can occur if people who care take the time to work in these areas. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
If this were taken up, how would it affect new articles about noncommercial corporations or associations? You could use Oregon Psilocybin Society, which I created, as an example. Would it have had to go through AfC? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I won't characterise on Oregon Psilocybin Society right now because I haven't gone through all the sources, but at first blush it seems to have attracted enough attention for notability. However, non-profits are notorious for attempting to promote themselves through Wikipedia, and most of them are written by someone with a COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking about this over the last couple days, and essentially what I came to is that "if having a Wikipedia article leads to an increase of money exchange, than it should be sent to AfC", which includes donations, so I'd vote, that yes Bri it would go to AfC. Not that it would have a problem getting approved, I just don't want to burden folks with determining if something is for/non-profit. Logically, that expands to BLPs as well, but I feel that CORP is a more pressing issue. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think that's a very elegant solution to a non-elegant problem. I mildly feel that 1990 is a bit too far back, but I trust your judgement over my own. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Wow. I can't believe what I'm seeing. Surely there must be a policy against using Wikipedia to conduct arbitrary "thought experiments". Especially ones where we just don't know what the possible side effects are. I think we've all gone mad. Huggums537 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


I created my first page, but not sure what I did wrong. I'm trying to understand what it's needed. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVelez71 (talkcontribs) 18:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC) still to do

DGG thank-you for the thoughtful comment about /sandboxEdit

I will try to incorporate the advice.

Can you give advice on the article on JHUBME. It is posted for being taken down due to conflict of interest. Can it be rescued. It is factual. Overexhuberant new Chairman trying to follow Stanford Computer Science and Oxford Computer Science both top ranked departments. Is it possible for editors like yourself to sharpen it up and remove individuals who are not noteable etc given the history is all documented and BME at JHU is largely considered to have created this modern field of BIomedical discovery. Thank-you in advance. Mim.cis (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I can remove the Prod tag, but I expect it will then be nominated for a discussion at AfD, and the consensus there will decide. There are two considerations: promotionalism, and notability , and either reason is sufficient for deletion. I can help with the promotionalism--at the present time it's not particularly outrageous--more a matter of tone than anything specific, and I've made what I think to be the necessary adjustments. Notability is a more difficulty question. We have no good standards for academic departments. but most submitted articles on them have been deleted, and I've almost always agreed with the decision. It's very difficult to write one without promotionalism unless the department is actually world-famous, and that's my personal standard, and the standard I argue for. It's relatively easy to decide this in the more general and longstanding fields, like for example physics. It's harder in the more specialized and newer ones, ones, like Biomedical Engineering. I cannot predict how the discussion will go.
the problem is to provide third party documentation of your statement "largely considered to have created this modern field" and each individual statement ones in the article, especially the ones already questioned with citation need tags. I point out the USNWR rankings are considered of rather dubious reliability here, certainly not as a measure of research importance. We include them because the public uses them.
Unless you can find material to document the statements, I do not think that the article will pass AfD. If you can, it probably will. If you provide them on the article talk page and let me know here, I will remove the tag. Otherwise there is no real point in trying in keep it. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank-you very much. I looked at several things. First, I appreciate that noteworthy is not an absolute metric.

I wanted to just share some thoughts on possible noteworthy measures indicating that Biomedical Engineering as a discipline is significant and within the field JHU BME is noteworthy. (i) Currently we have 8 faculty over 60, 12 faculty with h-index greater than 50, and 19 over 40. While h-index is not an absolute measure of noteworthiness, Wikipedia says and I am quoting "an outtsanding scientist has an h-index of 40, and a truely unique individual an h-index of 60". For comparison, I looked at Duke, Stanford and GTech in this manner, none have as many. GTech and Stanford have 5 greater than 50.(ii) We have 5 listed members of any of the National Academies. According to Wikipedia "Election into the National Academies is one of the highest honors in the scientific field. (iii) The size of our discipline is significant and of the scale of the departments of Biomedical Engineering are similar to other outstanding program which have wiki pages. For example Georgia Tech, Duke, UCSD and JHU have 40 tenure line faculty in Biomedical Engineering. (iv) A noteworthy measure of the importance of our undergraduate program, the acceptance rate of 7.8% into JHU BME is currently more competitive than CalTech and MIT based on U.S. News and World Report.

If there are other measures that Wikipedia uses of noteworthiness we would be happy to address. We agree that any statements that you feel are inappropriate because of inadequate 3rd party referencing should be taken down. At the time of our founding in 1962 there were no other departments. We are currently looking for 3rd party referencing to that effect. It seems appropriate that the statement "Johns is credited as ..." can be taken down until we find further referencing. We are proper the proper reference from U.S. News concerning continual ranking. Mim.cis (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability for the purposes of wikipedia does not correspond to the way the word is used in the Real World--it can only be thought of as a term of art -- language used in a special way by those within a field. I am giving you advice about what will be needed to keep the article, which requires dealing with the artificial manner that is used here. I also have my own opinion, but the advice I give you is based on my experience of what actually happens, not what I think ought to happen.
Officially, the measure Wikipedia uses for determining notability is the WP:GNG, whether there are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. If you have such material the article will be kept, whether or not it would rationally make sense to have it in the encyclopedia. If you do not, it won't, again whether or not it would rationally make sense to have it in the encyclopedia. The key words to pay attention to are substantial, independent, and reliable. To the extent that it will help influence how people consider the references, the best way of making the case for your deprtment is to focus not on present quality however high it may be, but historical significance, where it may be unique. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank-you for these clarifications. I am slowly learning. I may have clunkily tried to remove the prod based on my understanding of correct procedure. I left comments on Bfpage talk since BFP was the individual who tagged it. I hope the page can stay up and be edited and improved. Thank-you in advance in whatever you decide.Mim.cis (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017Edit

A new bibliographical landscapeEdit

At the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident.

Behind this achievement are a technical advance (fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up.

The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations.

But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers.

More is on the way. OABot applies the unpaywall principle to Wikipedia referencing. It has been proposed that Wikidata could assist WorldCat in compiling the global history of book translation. Watch this space.

November 2017 map of geolocated Wikidata items, made by Addshore



Redlink redirect madeEdit

Regarding this[9] edit, you just redirected the page to a non-existent talk page. Why did you even redirect it in the first place? Boomer VialHappy Holidays!Contribs 01:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thats what we do with accepted drafts. It keeps the records straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs)
Now, I'm really confused. Somebody else changed the redirect after you made it, and I think this article was a duplicate of an already existent article. Boomer VialHappy Holidays!Contribs 19:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

still to check


Hi! So my article on Dave Sanders, the Columbine High School coach that died during the massacre was rejected, and the reason was "not memorial". I'm not sure what this means. I wrote details on his life (there's not many), and a quick summary of his death. There's no other way to write it and if every other victim got a wikipedia article, he certainly deserves one (as does Daniel Rohrborough!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevejuneau (talkcontribs) 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We do not make articles on people whose only notability is having died in a disaster. I'm not sure I agree with that, and I've sometimes argued otherwise, but such has been the consensus. Two of the other victims only have articles, and in each case its because they have individually been the subjects of books ( and for one of them, songs) .But my decision is not final--another admin might accept it and it might conceivably be kept in an afd, and the decision is made by the community consensus in that afd discussion . Before you do that, try to find references providing substantial coverage about the individual in particular from third-party independent reliable sources--if you can find more and better material, there's a better chance. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-12Edit

14:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

G13 Error rate?Edit

Hello DGG. I saw your comment at WT:CSD regarding error rates on G13 nominations, and I was wondering what kinds of errors you were referring to. Do you mean technical errors in not meeting G13 criteria (e.g. pages that actually have been edited within the last six months)? Or do you mean pages that are potentially worthwhile and ought to be allowed more time to work?--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean results which are clearly wrong according to our current standards. and that includes- both the printed guidelines and the accepted standards of interpretation. No policy or guideline, however absolute it sounds, provides an automatic answer for all situations. Every administrative action at WP relies upon following consensus--in the case of deleting at speedy, the implied consensus of what other admins would reasonably do. If you examine WP:CSD, you will find each criteria has a qualifying word, such "credible" "unquestionably" "unsalvageable" "good faith" essentially", "implausible" and the like. There is an accepted range of interpretations for all of these, and a variety of accepted exemptions or inclusions in practice that are not specifically written. My % does not however include items that do fall under the accepted interpretation, but where I wish it were otherwise. Nor does it include instances where another admin interpreted it differently than I, but both of us are within the accepted range of interpretation. And it should be noted that for many of these, the accepted practice changes with time in one direction or another. Almost always in WP, the written rules are revised after the practice has changed. Furthermore, specific and general policies can contradict each other--for example, the details at CSD and the general rules at NOT are both policy, but can be harmonized in many different ways--some are within the accepted limits, some are stretching things, some are entirely unreasonable abut attempted nonetheless. Even more broadly, our fundamental WP:IAR could be interpreted to permit anything, but in practice is used also within accepted limits.
You will notice I'm not directly addressing the point you have in mind, G13--this is a case where the standards have apparently been changing. I think it is now accepted that it does not apply to material that would just as it is pass AfC; it might possibly exempt also material that with reasonable improvements would meet AfC, but I wouldn't say that someone was wrong who thought otherwise.
for clarity, I should add: When I give people advice about an article, I try to make certain my advice follows very conservatively the clearly accepted standard--I would consider anything else irresponsible. When I argue for doing something, that's different, and I sometimes do argue for adjusting the interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs) 07:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I generally tread lightly with G13s and only deleted the easy and fairly obvious ones. So, I was curious about the thought process of those who look at the harder candidates.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggested wikiproject on Canadian Visual ArtsEdit

Dear David. When I first started writing entries you were very helpful and I would like to do the same for new writers on Canadian Art by starting a separate wikiproject or category to the Canadian article page. This would include general information on Canadian notability and key awards, institutions, sources of published articles etc as well as preview on request or review new entries. I – and hopefully others – would add information and rescue those entries with notability or stub tags, but not deletions. Does this sound like a good idea to you and, if so, could I send you my notability criteria who you to have a look at. Best regards, Heather HeatherBlack (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

certainly I will look at anything you send, preferably on wiki but email is OK if you think it more appropriate. However, I remind you that no project has any authority over the community, and any rules the project may make regarding notability are mere suggestions unless the community chooses to formally add them as a Special Notability guidelines--which is rather rare, or tacitly adopt them by following them at AfD--which is more likely. It helps if they are consistent with existing guidelines, particularly WP:CREATIVE, and I am not sure I see the need for anything else, except for such details as which museums or publications count towards the conditions there. Other projects have made similar definitions, and they are usually respected.
I would also suggest that it be worded, "try to add information and evaluate those entries with notability tags etc .. "rather that necessarily rescue." The proper approach is to call attention to challenged articles in a field, but , not take a one sided approach to them. I'm confident you didn't mean to imply this, but meant to say to defend the articles that should appropriately be defended, but it has to be carefully worded to be unmistakably neutral. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you David! Yes my intention is to include and refine the Notability Creative Text with the Canadian institutions etc with a few suggestions that you passed on to me. And I agree it's important to use the proper words, so thank you, I will send you a short draft here within a week or so. Best wishes for the holidays. HeatherBlack (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Lily Jay - Concern over Inc profilesEdit

Hi DGG, I'm writing regarding Articles_for_deletion/Lily_Jay. You mentioned that every Inc article may have to be checked in order to remove Inc profiles. I think there's no reason to be worried, as Inc Profiles are meant for companies to have their standalone business profiles like this [17] or [18], similar to Bloomberg company profiles. Having an Inc Verified profile for $30/year does not give them the ability to publish and contribute on the Inc magazine itself.

Taking that into account, I'm trying to understand for myself what exactly made you think that this [19] Inc article was published by an Inc Profile?

Moreover, why do you consider Gold Coast Bulletin and Inc Magazine as unreliable? Do they fall into the category of self-published articles or press releases?

Thank you.  ⚜ LithOldor ⚜  (T) 17:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Bloomberg profiles are not reliable for notability either, just for verifying the basic facts about the company or individual. As for Inc Profiles. , to quote from their web site "we independently confirm that businesses are operational, websites are functional, social media links and phone lines work, content is appropriate and no obvious red flags exist. Inc. Verified Profiles are meant to save purchasers a little time by showcasing businesses that are part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. They are not an endorsement of products or services, nor a guarantee of quality." If I open a grocery store, once I've got my social media set up, I'd be qualified. They could be used for the above facts, and nothing more--all other content in them is written by the firm or its PR agency.
You are correct that this is not a profile. It would be more accurately classed as a press release. The give-away was the author: "by Wanda Thibodeaux, Copywriter,", and the expected line at the bottom: "The opinions expressed here by columnists are their own, not those of" DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Info for Wikiproject Canadian Visual ArtsEdit

Happy New Year, David! As I had mentioned I am sending you the text for your comment before I format the page. You will notice all of our Royal Societies and such Canadian anomalies as a provincial gallery called The Rooms, as well as Auction Houses called Galleries as individual's cannot be an art dealer in Canada, only galleries. Also, if you don't mind having a look at two recent ones that I did. Alan Klinkhoff Gallery, which is my third auction-artist estate house, hasn't been reviewed and I'm wondering if it's because of the "gallery name" although I wrote a comment in the talk page. Like Heffel's it's an office when you go in there are four desks crowded in a front room with no art, with a back room open to the public only for exhibitions of artist or collector's estate sales or "not-for-sale shows" complete with hockey sticks. With Annie Baillargeon, I'm wondering if I'm a little OCD when it comes to referencing as I'm a history major as well as designer-writer-educator. Thanks again. HeatherBlack (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Canadian Visual Arts


Thanks for your help. So, if I understand correctly, I'll move National Gallery of Canada (some biographies and/or works), Order of Canada, SASKART, museum catalogues, and Canadian Dictionary of Biography to notability. Under biographical information sources, I'll add media reviews (over two-paragraphs) together with the Note: use commercial artist catalogues, blog interviews, web or unpublished CVs for background information only, artist statement or technique. Does that make sense? Also as I'm doing more clean-up with only three or so new (all notable RCA, FRAIC, OCs or auction-related) and want to advise others, any comment on my own work, re Alan Klinkhoff Gallery and Annie Baillargeon (since 2014 my sole non decorated artist) is appreciated. HeatherBlack (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Tony Ahn PR/Reputation ManagementEdit

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Tony_Ahn_PR/Reputation_Management.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matthew Fergusson-StewartEdit

Saw this too late to do anything as nobody notified me about it or the other articles that were deleted, but in response to "promotional article for someone whose job is promotion. I tend to look at such articles quite skeptically. There is very little here that indicates any actual notability, and a great deal that indicates a self-indulgent bio, ("Fergusson-Stewart honeymooned on Islay and named his firstborn daughter Islay."--which happens to be where the Scotch he promotes is produced) known to be written by a declared paid editor, who is by training a PR professional .I think this is one more instance that paid editors, declared or undeclared, regardless of their good intentions,are generally not likely to write a NPOV article. The references are PR, and that;s all there is. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)"

The Scotch he promotes is Glenfiddich which is a Speyside single malt produced in Moray. It is not produced in Islay, one of the southernmost of the Inner Hebridean Islands located off the west coast of Scotland. Did you really need to fabricate something in order to get the deletion? You disappoint me. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

my error on the Scotch. I should have said "where Scotch is , famously, produced" sorry. But a self indulgent bio it certainly is. But it is true one might write such a bio merely because one likes the whiskey. And it is also true that people without a direct coi often write articles indistinguishable from coi because they copy the model of the great many promotional articles on WP. Some have even told that they thought that's what WP wanted. DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you watching them tell me that editing in userspace is still COI editing? Do you agree with that? If so, when did you switch your position? Because you were very supportive when I first came up with the idea for the process. If you don't agree with that, please say so. I've also asked them 3 times how to get the sockpuppet tag removed from accounts that have nothing to do with mine (and from accounts that already identify their connection with me, like my own personal account, which got tagged as a sock too), and nobody will touch it. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion has confused several issues. In my opinion: although editing in user space with a conflict of interest is editing with a conflict of interest, it is the permitted way to do coi editing, as long as the editing is NPOV. That was so at the time, and remains the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Julian EmeshaliEdit

Hi DGG. I'd contested the speedy deletion of this after pruning it right back. Shouldn't there have been some discussion before it was deleted? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC) to reply

Oil on WaterEdit

You made a minor edit to this, is it worth keeping any longer? It has had no substantive edits since May. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

three significant awards, major writer. I'm reluctant to try to cut down the plot section of a book I haven't read, but that's the only reason for not accepting it. Maybe I'll eliminate the plot section entirely. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
"to check'

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018Edit

... From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing.

Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost.

SVG pedestrian crosses road
Zebra crossing/crosswalk, Singapore

Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata.

For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met.


Charles Matthews, suppose term v in V is only a approximate match to term w in W. Not all shovels are spades or even usable as spades. One cannot dig a hole in earth with a snow-shovel. The article Schema crosswalk that the newsletter mentions explains this in a more detailed way. I'm aware you understand the problems of using wikidata to map from commons to enWP, or from one language WP to another. We should not pretend this is a trivial exercise. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, indeed. The "structured data on Commons" exercise is rather more demanding, and the ramifications of the current category structure on Commons will take effort to translate. The same phenomenon is visible in fact closer to hand, when one compares typical subcategory structures used on the German Wikipedia, which tend to be purist, with those here that lapse in the direction of the baroque.
I don't see, however, that these "facts on the ground" undermine the simple point that this editorial is trying to extract, from Alex Stinson's posting. Different, rather strict systems can be compared, if one takes some trouble. Wikidata is not committed to a particular ontology, and can handle complex subclass structures. Its query language is very expressive. The precondition is to get everything over a common denominator, first of all. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Canadian visual artsEdit

Hello David. I made a few improvements to the Wikiproject, and if the information is of use to you, please feel free to pass it on. Also I was wondering if you had a chance to look at the improvements to Alan Klinkhoff Gallery, and if everything was okay, could remove the new, unreviewed tag. In the past, I found that it was faster to use the "move article" but I have a few backlogged so have now returned to "submit draft" for review. Thanks again for all your help. I really appreciate it. Best regards HeatherBlack (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Henriette Harich-SchwarzbauerEdit

Could you have a look at this for me please. I PRODed it because I thought it was a no brainer for not meeting WP:PROF. It was dePRODed by its author on the basis that ' all professors are notable'. Maybe she is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with you that she doesn't meet PROF (based on what's in the article). I haven't looked into general claims of notability, but being the head of a department often means you've just been around longer than everyone else. Just because an editathon created the page (or vetted it) does not mean that the PROF rules have changed (and no, not all professors are notable). Primefac (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
I'm looking at the publications in some more considerable depth. My comments will be on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
to recheck

Huffpost and other sources for May Tha HlaEdit

Based on your AFD comments for Danielle Fong's article, can you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women#May_Tha_Hla and see if they did any better in digging up secondary sources for that? It's leaning on similar notability as I discussed with mainly BBC 100 Women and similar lists but expanded from there. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's time we eliminated placement on lists as a criterion in notability determinations. Thee have been too many instances of borderline notability decisions based on such factors. (I want to say, that although I sometimes evaluate material a little differently than you, I greatly respect your attempts to bring some realism and common sense to these discussions.) DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. The Danielle Fong article has a better chance at notability than some of the AFD, AFC and New Pages Feed articles I've had to deal with, even if the overall media and apparent rush of new advocate editors is biased towards promoting her causes. Feel free to chime in at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women which is the general thread I have going on, regarding such listings. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
From the pt of view of notability I agree there have been much more unlikely articles. But check my nom. I nominated it because of the repeated promotionalism, which seemed unfixable--I did try. Unless it's protected, it'll soon be back at 40,000. Opinion varies on how we should handle situations like this--none of our methods are fully satisfactory. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
If it survives AFD then it definitely needs protection from promotionalism. Another editor has already upped the talk page to mention DS-level sanctions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

12:19:27, 22 January 2018 review of submission by ZelgizbogEdit

Hi DGG. Thank you for the pointers. I have added new references to the article. I believe # 2,3,4,5,7,9and 11 would be considered notable and non-press releaseish. I have deleted the awards sections as well. Would appreciate any other pointers you think would improve this article. I have resubmitted for review in the meantime. Thank you!

Zelgizbog (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

preliminary question: were any of the activities in the "Activism" section successful? DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Pentax is a harvard business school case study and was a very successful case. the other one is ongoing. im sure there are many that were unsuccessful that didnt make the papers....Zelgizbog (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi DGG. Just checking in to see if I can do anything else for this page. Thanks Zelgizbog (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

...Zelgizbog (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


Hugo GottesmannEdit

Thank you so much for your acceptance and comment about the article on Hugo Gottesmann.Mary Jane Doerr (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You have been so kind in helping me through this and to be successfull. Deep Appreciation.Mary Jane Doerr (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me the location of how to change my user name? Again you have been most helpful.WS114 13:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

To Recheck

A kitten for you!Edit

Thank you for your contributions

CanadiaNinja (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Deprod: Simple EnergyEdit

Hi DGG, I have deprodded Simple Energy because it's been previously kept at AfD. I only did this for procedural reasons and have no prejudice against you taking it back to AfD. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vimala's Curryblossom CafeEdit

I recently made this close to an AfD. I am not seeing any consensus here, Spartaz has questioned the close. In normal circumstances I would revert, however Spartaz has been less than neutral when dealing with me and far from cordial. I noticed you voted delete in this case but it appears that another editor Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) has edited it after me close which appears to be consensus through editing. I have no qualms if you elect to reopen it and as you voted delete Spartaz should not have any issues with my request from you for a neutral third party opinion. I can't see any consensus to delete and his statements on my talk page are patently false. I highlighted WP:AUD and arguments which favor both inclusion and deletion, not a vote count, though the vote count was in favor of keeping. Any input from you is appreciated, for or against. Valoem talk contrib 17:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't really reopen a close on an AfD I voted in. I might be reopening it hoping for a reclose as delete. Spartaz and I rarely agree at either AfD or Deletion Review, but I think we both usually feel that it make little sense to challenge a non-consensus close unless it wholly irrational, and your close was reasonable enough (though I would advise you never to even mention the vote count in a close, even in a general way). I presume the request is because of the principal of WP:NAC; NAC is not clear in this situation, except for the general requirement not to do NACs of contentious AfDs. The simplest thing is to revert the close yourself. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
If you believe delete is a better outcome I will reopen, but Spartaz would be bias here already suggesting he would delete, and 100% votes against anything I've done, I would prefer a neutral admin close if that is possible or DRV. Do you feel this to be reasonable? Valoem talk contrib 20:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually I was going to close it as keep but nevermind we can leave it as nc and someone will no doubt relist it later. Spartaz Humbug! 05:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


User:DGG, I sent this same question to User:PhilKnight, on his Talk-Page, but he had no answer. Based on the directives given by WP:ARBPIA2, are we as editors of Wikipedia who wish to mention the location of a city, say, in Samaria (such as Havat Gilad), required to write West Bank as its geopolitical location/region, or can we simply write Judea and Samaria Area, based on either one of the six Administrative Districts of Israel? As for the name of the country, are we permitted to write "Israel", instead of "Palestinian territories", for places located on the former Jordanian side of the pre-1967 Demarcation lines between Israel and Jordan, known as the "West Bank"? The reason why I am asking you is because an article written by a former editor for Wikipedia had initially listed all of the towns in the country according to region as found in Districts of Israel, but then after six years, another editor came along and changed all regional locations to "West Bank" and "Palestinian territories." Is this proper procedure? If not, can we restore the original edit?Davidbena (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason why an arb should know better than anyone else. What is needed for this is community agreement. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. So, should I add on that relevant Talk-Page a RfC in order to gain a consensus about the edit?Davidbena (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

AfC and stuffEdit

DGG, despite all the respect I have for you as an editor, I was somewhat surprised (and, to be honest, not too pleased) when at John Cabot University you moved a draft written by an employee over the previous content (some of which I had written). I had thought that we had similar views on the pernicious and destructive influence of corporate advertising on this beautiful project. But that is nothing to my amazement at your move of Galleria d'Arte Maggiore G.A.M. into article space. I couldn't see any way of dealing with that ill-written, ill-referenced promotional screed, almost certainly written by the gallery itself, other than complete removal – so that's what I did. I've written a couple of sentences, with refs, and sent it to AfD (you may have seen, I don't know); presumably you thought it notable, but I could find no evidence that it is. A plea: if a page is so bad that it will take longer to clean up than to write from scratch, please don't move it to mainspace; if you think the topic notable, why not create a stub on it yourself, and save other editors the time and trouble needed to sort out a mess?

I see that you've put a men-at-work sign on Leoncillo. Leonardi is indubitably notable, but that page is more or less unrescuable; there's also the possibility of translational copyvio (NB his wife Maria Zampa is called "Maria Paw" in our page, that's indiscriminate machine-translation from Italian – but from where?). There is plenty on him in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani alone, quite enough to write a proper page. I'm more than happy to contribute to that if you would like; I'd suggest removing the current content, probably in its entirety. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

John Cabot has continued to dissatisfy me, and you are correct that I need to take another look at it. I have a very long list of things to go back to. Doesn't everyone?
Galleria: of course I'm aware of the promotional nature, and I stopped several times to consider what I should be doing, and hadn't really decided. Nowadays I usually do not rewrite things as promotional as that. Earlier I did, but the sheer amount and nature of the promotionalism has tending to discourage me. (But even in removing promotional articles, I concentrate on those likely to be by paid editors, who are deliberately trying to subvert our principles, and not the more benign direct editing by the subject, which is usually much more transparent and very likely to be a misunderstanding of the way we work, rather than defiance.) I decided to do this one because I judged it to be clearly notable enough to be worth the trouble--and a little interesting in its possibiltiies. See the afd for further comment.
Leoncillo--my principle with these has been to improve it enough to 1/ see that they stay in WP for future improvement 2/ try to clarify the notability 3/ have them read like English, 4/ fix at least some of the broken internal links 5/make sure that references are at least copied over 5/ try to resolve any ambiguities or contradictions --or if necessary remove the obviously defective parts I've done this for the first part, and started the second. If you want to do the rest, please do; I'm somewhat literate in this field, but certainly not an expert,.
People have different approaches to things like this. Mine is that I try to rescue what can be rescued quickly. I'm much faster and copyediting and rewriting than writing from scratch. When I came here, I initially thought what I would do is work on bringing articles in my field(s) to a high quality and writing what was missing, but I very quickly found I enjoyed more trying to rescue the possible and remove the impossible. So I never in 11 years here have actually worked on trying to bring an article to the best I could do with it. Maybe I will someday, but for now I plan to keep going, and I regret the current immediate need to concentrate more on removing promotionalism than rescuing notability--it's relatively rare I can even do as much as I did here.
I'm aware of the possibility of translational copyvio. There surely was some here, and of course its a machine translation as shown by many indications. Therefore I tried to reorganize as well as correcting to avoid too close a paraphrase. And, as I said, other approaches are welcome--and necessary. I don;' really think it helpful to deprecate complementary approaches. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Lookout (company)Edit

I gather you came across this page some way or another after seeing Lookout co-authored a report with the Electronic Frontier Foundation exposing a major state-sponsored hacking campaign. Given the company's recent press coverage, why prod the page now? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I removed the product listing. It might help to expand the last sentence into a description of the firm's role. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Deprodding of Research software engineeringEdit

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Research software engineering, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I've added more information that shows how RSE differs from SE and it's a topci by itself, more will be added in the coming days. Let me know if you still think this is not enough. Thanks Dvdgc (talk)

Bloomsbury SquareEdit

DGG Stop reversing the original "Letters to John Law" citation for the language relating to the duel of John Law and Edward Wilson on the Bloomsbury_Square page. You have clearly lost both your objectivity and credibility as a Wikipedia editor in relation to that edit as you have invented several incorrect reasons to justify your edit: justifications that are simply incorrect and baseless. Firstly, you claim the book is a "self published source" - that is simply incorrect. It is not. It is published by an established independent publisher. Secondly, you claim the book is "almost unknown" - again, that is simply incorrect. It is not: is on the reading list for the history of economics course at MIT ( Thirdly, the language stated in the article is taken from the Adams book - it is not from the Gleeson book you seem intent on incorrectly citing for the language from the Adams book, and that is because the Gleeson book does not deal with the duel in anywhere near the same extent as the Adams book. Fourthly, that citation and its corresponding text was inserted on the page in question (not by me - check the history) 5 years ago, and has quite correctly stood as the correct text and correct citation since that time, before you arbitrarily decided to erroneously remove it. Might I suggest you take a step back and attempt to regain some objectivity about that edit as you are damaging both the integrity of the article, and your own integrity as an editor by making inaccurate and unsubstantiated edits and inventing incorrect reasons for making them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siolio (talkcontribs) 01:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As I asked you, did you or an associate write the book? DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
DGG As, I responded to you - NO. I read it at MIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siolio (talkcontribs) 01:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll deal with this later. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
DGG You can 'deal' with whatever you like, whenever you want to. But I suggest you take an honest reflection of your edit on this article (especially given what you say about editing on your own user page - as your position here goes completely against the standards you claim to maintain) as you will see that you have completely lost objectivity over a perfectly legitimate source (which was not inserted by me) and have made erroneous edits in relation to it and attempted to substantiate those erroneous edits not with facts and objectivity but with completely incorrect and contrived statements that are baseless have zero credibility. In this respect, your edits are doing a disservice to the page in question, a disservice to the Wikipedia community, and damaging your own credibility.

Public library anon editing and account creation versus rangeblocksEdit

Hi, I have a question about anon editing from public libraries in general and NYPL in particular.

Background: The purpose is for awareness and for workarounds at our Cascadia Wikimedians events where e.g. King County Library System seems to be blocked more often than not. I went to my local branch today and verified it is currently in this state ( rangeblocked, I think) for a system with 700,000 members and ~2 million in its service area.

Just a bit earlier today, I saw a contrib from a NYPL anon and was a bit surprised as I thought they were usually rangeblocked too.

The questions for you: Is NYPL usually or just sometimes blocked? Do rangeblocks pose a problem for you at public events such as editathons? Is the workaround simply to have an account creator at the editathon? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: If you didn't know, KCLS and NYPL vie for busiest system in the U.S. [20] We pulled ahead in 2010 or 2011 but are now back at #2. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Bri, could you please check: I do not find it on our lists of blocked sites. The usual block prevents only anonymous editors. If you are blocked again when you edit with your username, please email me a copy of the message you receive.
At NYC we have about 10 or 12 admins (+ 1 crat + 2 arbs), and are able to deal with this sort of thing. Cascadia seems to have very few. (more about that on your user page). Otherwise, there are various methods available, but first I want to see what the situation is. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I emailed the IP block message to you for checking. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018Edit

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.

Wikidata as HubEdit

One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites.

Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8.

Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL.


To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.

Genesis MiningEdit

Hi DGG, my name is Marco Krohn and I am one of the co-founders of "Genesis Mining". I just tried to create a stub about Genesis Mining, but noticed that the article is blocked because it was not considered noteworthy in the past. I have not edited Wikipedia for a long time, so please bear with me, if I do not follow the right route by directly asking you to unblock the article. Any guidance would be highly appreciated! Please note that my intention is only to create a stub for the company. I do not want to be involved in the article itself; this should be done by the Wikipedia community.

The reason why I think that "Genesis Mining" is fulfilling the criteria as per Wikipedia:Notability by now, is the extensive coverage by international media, including:

Any help/pointers from your side would be highly appreciated. -- mkrohn (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the frank disclosure, so I assume you have read WP:COI. The protection was because the article was re-created twice by the sock of an editor who had been banned as a undeclared paid editor. I have just deleted the version that was in draft, because it was also created by a banned editor. I am glad you realize that is not the way to proceed. You can proceed to write an new article in Draft space, and when you are ready we can look at and see if the protection should be lifted to create it.
But interviews with anyone associated with the company are not reliable sources, because they are not truly independent--the person can say whatever they please. The company however is prominent enough that you should be able to find real news articles that discuss it in a substantial way. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi there. I worked very hard on the Livin Lite RV article to source it and be objective. To the extent that it could be perceived to read like an advertisement, that is due to the limited sources that are available (though I don't agree with the advertisement assertion). All content must be verifiable. I've written and edited many Wikipedia articles (not that that makes me any good). In working on this one I looked at other RV manufacturer articles. This new article is one of the best out there. It contains basic facts about the company that are all sourced and verifiable. I request you reconsider this tag or advise me on what I can do to meet the standards as you perceive them. Thank you.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

PS--I went ahead and removed some of the external links.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I see you've been working on a number of companies in this field, among other topics, so it's clear that your intent is not promotional. But compare this with the article on Thor Industries. The key problem here is is the repeated emphasis and excessive detail about the lightweight construction. When you fix it, let me know. . DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a number of edits. One thing is, the lightweight construction is something that makes this product different so it seems particularly noteworthy to discuss it--as long as it's sourced. Thanks for your work on wikipedia, I hope you'll find the edits acceptable.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Also, dealers are saying Thor/KZ is on the verge of shutting down Livin Lite. There isn't much material other than talk in chat groups and one dealer did a blog post about it. It's not enough I don't think to add that fact yet, but as soon as an RV news outlet covers it (as it seems likely that they will) I will add it to the article. I found the company interesting because it appears they produce something unique in the RV industry, which is notorious for poorly built products. I am a huge fan of Airstreams, but in some ways the Livin Lite products seem to be even better built than Airstreams. At any rate, the way they construct their trailers is what got my attention and what got me interested in it.--Utahredrock (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there is still too much emphasis on detail, and I may edit it further myself. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Summer Rayne OakesEdit

Hi. I'm working on an article about this rather well known "eco-model" at User:GRuban/Summer_Rayne_Oakes, but noticed your comment about "need an increased level of scrutiny" at the epitath for the previous incarnation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Rayne Oakes, and respect your opinion.

So, said solicitation: scrutinize! Starting sources - some silly, some seriously substantial. Seemingly sufficient? --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

As a general comment, remember that in many recent afds we considered interviews with subjects where they say what they please not to be truly independent sources, but rather primary sources, with all their usual limitation. But I think almost any press on an entertainment or society figure or model or the like, is instigated by PR, but in theses field insisting on real freedom from PR might make it almost impossible to have an article, unless the person is actually famous.
My general view is to adapt the requirements to the field, to some degree, and interpret them so we can justify articles on the most notable, without requiring actual fame with academic books on them. I am not one of the people who want to adjust standards to decrease our coverage for fields in which they have no interest. We all have different ideas about what fields are important, and we need to accommodate each other. I don't want to impose my own views about importance to the world upon others--and I expect others will do similarly in return.
For specifics, see the draft talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  Thank you --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, it took me just a bit longer than I thought it would ... but here it is: Summer Rayne Oakes. Hope it is OK. --GRuban (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of page: Introduction to Modern Application DevelopmentEdit

Hi DDG, I noticed you had deleted my page on Introduction To Modern Application Development. I would like to understand why. You had given the reason as 'unambiguous promotion or advertising', but everything in the article was sourced from independent, highly reputed news sources. Could you please explain why? Tanmaig (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I deleted it after it has been listed by another experienced editor. It is indistinguishable from a straightforward advertisement for the MOOC, including an outline of course content and information of getting academic credit for it. This is not encyclopedic content.
I'd say just the same for your article on The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. The book is notable, but the absurdly over-detailed article is promotional--it is 10 times the length of the articles on his other books. Articles do not have to be intended as an advertisement to be promotional --we cannot judge intent. We judge content. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Second OpinionEdit

Example source: Thurm, Scott (February 23, 2009). "McKinsey Partners Pick Barton to Lead Firm". The Wall Street Journal.
Article-text this source is used to support: Dominic Barton "was hired by McKinsey & Company to work in the Toronto office in 1986."
Question: Does WP:AGEMATTERS prohibit using this 2009 source for events taking place in 1986?
Context: This is regarding the feedback I got from @Spintendo: on a draft I prepared for the Dominic Barton page (see Talk). This feedback effects most of the content covering his career before he became famous in 2009. CorporateM (Talk) 14:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Finding a contemporary source for bio details before anyone is taking notice of the subject will be tough, and the source would be primary. TKe it back further. Unless you can find a newspaper birth announcement, a birth certificate would be the only contemporary source for a subject's birthdate. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Age does not matter for a source for factual information such as this. Nothing in the section quoted has anything to do with this sort of situation. Furthermore, a birth certificate is a primary source,and does not definitively seytle the question of birthdate in any event--they can be misdated accidentally or deliberately. I will take a look at the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Example source:Thurm, Scott (February 23, 2009). "McKinsey Partners Pick Barton to Lead Firm". The Wall Street Journal.
Draft article-text this source is used to support: "He was hired by McKinsey & Company to work in the Toronto office in 1986 and worked in Toronto for eleven years."
Clarification: I reviewed this claim statement and was concerned with its mentioning events taking place in 1986. The claim statement in the draft version said that the subject worked at the Toronto office for 11 years. But according to the source proper, the subject worked in Asia for 11 years. Both claims cannot be true, unless the source meant that Barton worked in the Asia sector department at its Toronto office for 11 years. The WSJ does not ultimately specify which was the case. It was this discrepancy and the uncertainty surrounding it which led me to mark the Thurm source as unapproved for use on its first claim, which I felt needed clearing up, while marking it as approved for use on its second claim (that Dominic Barton won the election in 2009 and became Managing Director of McKinsey & Company on July 1st). Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 09:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi David. Just wanted to check-in and see if this was still on your radar. No rush. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi DGG. I thought I'd see if you still had any interest in this page. About two months ago @John Broughton: did the early life section and got halfway down the career section, but has since gotten busy elsewhere. He is also no longer managing director at McKinsey. I'd be happy to start a new string on the changes that are still needed. CorporateM (Talk) 12:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Pradip SawantEdit

Hi DGG! Thank you for taking the time to review my submissionDraft: Pradip Sawant. I've read the feedback, but it seems a little broad. I would appreciate some specific pointers as to how this can be improved. I appreciate your help. And also please tell me some example of good 3rd party references, cause i have used Times of India as reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnybcn1 (talkcontribs) 09:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Michael A. White's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Source notability -- usefulness of non-notable sourcesEdit

Hi DGG, Many thanks for your many productive contributions to the Wiki community. I'm a noobie here and am working on my first contribution, Draft:Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (Thanks for the helpful suggestions). I've cited a mix of notable and non-notable sources (more of the latter), since the non-notable citations provide useful information. Does including a large fraction of non-notable citations detract from the article, per Wiki standards? Should I remove the non-notables (almost) completely? I've resubmitted my draft, and it's awaiting review. ~Cheers~ David Fieldsde (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The requirement for sources is not that they are notable, but rather that they are reliable; for material in an article, the rules are at WP:RS, with details discussed at the very large number of discussion in the archives of [[WP::RSN]], the Reliable sources noticeboard. The special conditions for sources that are suitable for showing notability are at WP:N, which can basically be summarized as references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The interpretation of that general phrase varies with subject, and to some extent tends to reflect general feelings about what our coverage ought to be.

With respect to Draft:Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop: We generally have been relatively reluctant to make articles of series of conferences,or organizations that sponsor them, unless there is very firm 3rd party evidence that they are regarded as the most important one in the subject. The sources in the draft are almost entirely publications by the organization itself or very closely related organizations, and therefore not independent. My role in screening AfCs is not to decide on accepting the article, but to try to estimate whether the community will accept it. The place where that decision is made is in an AfD discussion, and it goes by consensus. The way we do things here, nobody can fully predict the result of such discussions, but on the basis of my experience in many thousands of them, the article is unlikely to be accepted in its current form. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ←

Thanks for clarifying that the need is for more reliable (independent) sources that show notability. Please continue contributing to the Wiki effort. Best regards. Fieldsde (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Teenage notabilityEdit

If my memory serves, is it not customary to not include BLPs for single event notability for children (teens included), including National Spelling Bee winners, National Science Fair winners, National teenage beauty contest winners, and so forth? Atsme📞📧 21:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

List_of_Scripps_National_Spelling_Bee_champions has a few linked bios, but generally not only for the win. Interesting, a search for "Ananya Vinay" turns up a heck of a lot more substantial RS coverage (major news outlets) than "Sophia Dominguez-Heithoff" does (social media accounts, youtube, pageant and fan sites). Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
[21] - not sure where this link goes, but it broke the section title so I'll add it here. Atsme📞📧 23:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you that WP should not cover them, but there have recently been at AfD keep decisions for a surprising number of bio of young people who have had some press coverage for accomplishments which would not have made them notable had they been adults. I am therefore somewhat reluctant to bring AfDs for the people listed in the table. We would need a rule similar to that for sports, where only adult competitions indicate notability--but those who believe in the unthinking application of the GNG without considering the subject field would probably oppose that also.
Of the spelling bee champions, the only one who I consider clearly notable as an adult is L. E. Sissman, who became an unquestionably notable writer. Frank Neuhauser as winner of the first bee might be another exception. The other with articles had at most minor roles in the very notable film Akeelah and the Bee about the spelling bee. (Of course others without articles might prove to be notable also.) DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

deletion of One With Life Tequila pageEdit

I would like to understand why you deleted the above referenced page - the cited reason was promotion/advertising. This page provided all factual statements about the company supported by independent sources. While the page is about a particular tequila brand, not unlike the numerous other tequila brand pages on wiki, all of the statements were factual and pertinent to the new brand. Can you specify more particularly the issues and concerns? If these were legitimate reasons for the deletion, then why are the other brand pages not also deleted? Thank you in advance for any guidance you can provide.\Philacevedo (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

when it's a new brand, there is very likely to be nothing to say but advertising. With established brands, eople may sometimes write about it, if only with respect to the cultural significance. What was available here was either very specialized awards whose very purpose was allowign for promotion, and local notices, which are indiscriminate for local industries. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the clarification. Though, still a bit dismayed, as the rule seems to be selectively applied and this particularly brand targeted. Additionally, there does seem to be some distinction and societal importance to this brand which sets it apart from some of the other new brands with pages. That is; it seems to be one of the few created and owned by a woman. This in a male dominated industry seems important. Philacevedo (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Many articles were accepted in earlier days when standards about notability and promotionalism were much lower. It will take us many years to remove them, but the least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

School AfDsEdit

What we feared is happening, users are now trawling school articles looking for ones to delete. You can tell these rampant deletionists this: Thank you for patrolling new pages. As a New Page Reviewer, you are expected to know our deletion policies inside out. Please see: WP:ATD-R and please note that this is a policy, not a mere guideline. Thanks. Change the wording if they are not NPR rights holders. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's also just a suggestion (may have a title that would make a useful redirect, emphasis added). You're obviously welcome to ask users to curtail their "rampant" nominations (if they're doing so) but to require them to abide by a suggestion in a policy is a bit much. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, the "you" was referring to Kudpung but I have a bad habit of using the royal "you" for general instances anyway. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The policy that we should redirect rather than delete if a suitable target is available is one of the most ignored parts of deletion policy, almost as much ignored as the part that says for subjects that might be notable with no significant information, a combination article can be preferable. I'm not really sure that any of the section on alternatives to deletion is actually followed enough to make it an accepted policy. I prefer to use policy vs guideline arguments for only the most basic policies, such as NOT ADVERTISING. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac:, who's talking about 'requiring'? Just pointing to a policy is not the same as handing out orders. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I often word it as "suggest" . or, "you might also want to consider" in giving advice, especially when it's a question of trying to tell people they should be doing something differently. Even so, it is sometimes seen as a little aggressive. Sometimes it is helpful to simply correct it, and see if they get the idea. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Uday FoundationEdit

I have tried to do major clean up. Still not sure if any further clean up required. Pls see if you can remove advert tag now or suggest what needs to be done. Thanks HelloDolly89 (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I doubt is enough non-repetitive non-promotional content for both an article on the sponsor and on the foundation. But I will take another look DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for consideration. Removed almost majority of text and link. Regards HelloDolly89 (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Rare Book & Manuscript LibraryEdit

A large section of this draft was added by a user (on your suggestion) to the text of Main Library (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign) but in such a way that no indication of its origin was given and thus no credit was given to the original author(s). That needs to be remedied either through a history merge or through a deletion of all the subsequent revisions of the merge target, removing the copyvio content from the history (otherwise it is only too likely to be restored).

My suggestion would be to (1.) merge the history of Draft:The Rare Book & Manuscript Library with that of The Rare Book & Manuscript Library (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign), then (2.) delete the copyvio-violating edits from the history of Main Library (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign). If you still think the latter to be unsuitable for an article of its own, the third and final step step would be to (3.) redirect and re-merge parts of The Rare Book & Manuscript Library (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign) with The Rare Book & Manuscript Library (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign) but with an edit comment indicating the origin of the content. --Hegvald (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the article should be rather of the Libraries of the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, and I will make the appropriate merges and links. The history may have to remain for the time being in the history of the redirects, because the only times I have done so, I have made a total mess out of it. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for youEdit

  The Civility Barnstar
Hello DGG. I give you this barnstar for your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Eagle Airlines destinations [22], which was just awesome and keeps the spirit of Wikipedia alive. Thank you.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates (4th nomination)Edit

Starting a DRV is probably equivalent to peeing against a strong wind.... but I'm minded to do so because, had I seen that discussion, I wouldn't have closed that yet. While there was a clear majority vote to keep, the majority of the keep arguments weren't grounded in policy, and much of the delete arguments were. Therefore I don't see that a real consensus grounded in policy had emerged by the time you closed it. Many of the arguments were "already survived 3 other AFDs" but the counterargument would be "been nominated 3 other times which suggests we have a problem." And that problem of whether the list is a noteworthy topic hasn't been addressed.

I would like to see the discussion re-opened and continued. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, that article should die in a fire. It freely mixes people form a period where being a member of an organised church was the default, people who are professed Christians but not in any way active in promoting that, and people who are outliers in their field by virtue of religious faith. It exists solely to promote one religion, and actually largely to support the anti-science end of that religion. Being a Jewish Nobel laureate 100 years ago was a big deal. Being a Christian Nobel laureate in the field of evolutionary biology now would be a big thing. Virtually everything about what it means to be a Christian and a Nobel laureate has changed from the earliest tot he latest entries in that list. Its like a list of poeple who believe the white race is inherently superior. It will include virtually everybody at one point and virtually nobody at another,and tells us exactly nothing about either category because the same would apply if you replaced Nobel laureate with doctor, engineer or anything else. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I realized I am not neutral, and to avoid any doubt, I have reopened. I do not think I would have needed to do so, since I was closing according to what I think a very clear consensus, with which I happened to agree. I usually do agree with the consensus at AfDs that I close. None of us limits our closes to the ones that close against our opinion, or therewould be no admins atall for most AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
btw, JzG, I don't see that any Nobel prizes were ever awarded for evolutionary biology, so I'm not sure of the relevance of your example. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi, the notability is clear. But what we currently have is a very promotional article, mainly written by an undeclared paid editor. If that can stand, I'm very unclear how we are not just providing a platform for their paid advertising. KJP1 (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

KJP1, as you know, I very rarely do this sort of revision nowadays, as I feel very strongly about such editing. But it is quite simple here to remove the worst of the promotion, leaving in only the factual material. The company will thus have paid for the work involved in the factual update and the work involved in the promotionalism. But they will discover that they paid for the promotionalism in vain, and the COI editor, could not deliver what he no doubt promised. Since he now knows enough to declare, I think he will know enough not to do this sort of editing again. And if clients wish to pay him to update financial results and facility locations, this is the most innocuous form of paid editing.
I would not have done this had it taken any significant amount of work, or if the firm had not in fact been the market leader in an important field of general interest here. I probably would not have done it had it ben a new article, but not all the prior work was promotional . Normally in such a case it is better to revert back to the last non-promtional version, but in this instance that would have also removed the factual updates. When I do engage in this work, I try to make it as easy for myself as possible.
General principles usually have exceptions. Even my own general principles. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Understood. But this place does get depressing sometimes. What it aimed to be, and what it could be, compared to what it actually often is. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it's getting better. Ten years ago when I joined, even just 5 years ago, it would have accepted that sort of content. You are of course right that we need to keep working, because it still is far short of the goal. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)v

Equinix (2)Edit

I appreciate your assessment of the importance of the article in your mention here. I was nevertheless very tempted to indef the author. The page as published was an architypical example of unpaid editing (according to your own essay). I do not believe the creator should be allowed to continue to edit it. My main part in UPE issues is to set examples so that we have precedents to draw on for future policy changes, and to provide solid examples for new page reviewers who still probably miss recognising such issues. What do you think?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

See my comment on his talk p. He did declare when asked. He might be able to learn. If he contributes further such content, then will be the time to block him. I gave him what amounts to a 4i warning. WP benefits not only by blocking persistently promotional editors, but in politely encouraging the amenable ones to stop. We want to have PR houses to have a good opinion of ourselves, even as they learn to stay away from us. We don't want to have to fight them. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt comment there. It was excellent. (FYI: KJP1). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC) talk]]) 03:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeking guidanceEdit

Hi DGG, I hope you’re well. I know it’s been a while since we last spoke, but I’m looking for guidance on conflict resolution, and your name has appeared in a number of places across Wikipedia. You commented on my initial propositions to make changes to David M. Cote three years ago, and weighed in on my ongoing dispute with Philafrenzy not too long after. I recently requested new edits, and Philafrenzy again antagonized me on the sole basis that I am a COI editor. I want to understand what my options are and what best practices would be for resolving this conflict. I previously submitted an RfC, requested a 3O, and submitted an edit request.

I feel that despite my efforts, any propositions I make are viewed with great antagonism, and that my character is attacked rather than the content I’m suggesting. It seems to me that Philafrenzy is being deliberately obstinate (and I’m sure they think the same of me), but it’s difficult for me to continue assuming good faith when they neglect to engage on the talk page and instead edit the article directly, with the recent exception of another personal attack after I made another edit request.

Philafrenzy and I have found common ground before, so I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility for us to come to some sort of understanding. Would you agree that mediation is the next step forward? I don’t think we’ve reached the point of arbitration, and I’d like to handle this as diplomatically as possible.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I will look at the current state. Arb com, by the way, does not handle content disputes. DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate it. I know ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes, but I guess I'm curious to know where the line is between a content dispute and a editor conflict. I've never found myself in a situation like this, and I respect your expertise.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • recheck'

WTR discussion follow-upEdit

Dear DGG, we actually had quite a discussion about COI editing at my talk page. What I said was that when you follow the rules and fully comply, you actually suffer from what Melcous labeled as "more heavily scrutinized" (moderation). My view is that the current practice of such super-scrutinized editing of paid articles strongly discourages paid editors from following the process, pushes them to the grey area and also makes the life of paid-editing fighters more difficult as the volume of such edits and practices increase.

It also frustrates clients who are persuaded to follow the rules. One case where I had a greatly frustrated client was The National Memo case where the article has been rolled back 3 times and currently exists in a highly castrated form (more like a stub now). I had to return part of the payment and apologize. Had these edits been made from the single-purpose account, they'd most likely stayed. At the same time we have a lot of articles where large parts of the text go completely unreferenced and it is perfectly OK. Please don't remind me about WP:OSE, I think we both know what I am talking about.

I also noticed that around 70% of articles about lawyers and law firms were created from WP:SPAs (not necessarily through the AfC). This is an area where the demand is high and commercial interest is very obvious (lawyers earn big money). Editors probably understand that they won't be able to publish such articles the official way simply because people hate lawyers and Wikipedia editors hate paid edits. So the demand is here and shortcuts are pretty obvious. This practice also gives paid editors 1-2 week period to get their payment before the article gets deleted (if that happens). I've also seen some of the articles for the potential clients where they decided not to work with me and go for such shortcuts. All of them were made from single-purpose accounts.

Having said that I want to highlight that I truly understand some of these paid editing "watchdogs" and know that they want to make the project better. I only noticed that these edits rarely add value to the article, they are almost always just in "delete, delete, delete" mode (Melcous is a nice exception from this rule - they actually re-write the text and try to preserve content that has some value). So instead of fighting large amounts of quite clear undeclared edits, moderators spend their time on editing "easy targets" doing it easy way. One possible solution could be inviting some "inclusionists" for the improvement or having a broader discussion about such articles before editing. Hope it helps. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm advocating dealing with the SPAs, especially the sock SPAs, rather than relaxing the attitude. Blocking open proxies and VPNs would be an excellent first step. While it sometimes seems counterproductive to bother the disclosed PEs more than the undisclosed ones, disclosing cannot be a carte blanche to write promotional stuff. Bbarmadillo, you might want to correct the quote above. It misrepresents what I said a little. NPP != AfC. Thanks. Rentier (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Rentier removing your quote to avoid the confusion. To clarify, obviously paid entries should comply with Wikipedia guidelines - just like unpaid ones. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Along the lines of what has been said by Rentier: From my perspective, the solution is to more vigorously remove the articles by the obviously undeclared paid editors, and to raise the standards for all articles. There is ongoing progress here: We are in the process of tightening up our reliable source requirements for organizations, and a strict interpretation of them deal with at least the lower third. We are once more considering an increase in the number of edits to get confirmed status, (Unfortunately but necessarily, ACTRIAL will be entering the test phase where new editors can edit in mainspace, and this will cause a move of the problems from AfC to NewPages.) We are also considering ways to facilitate people reporting instances of paid editing, or approaches to their business by undeclared paid editors.
Even so, the problem of dealing with the hundreds of thousands of press releases masquerading as articles submitted in earlier years when standards were lower and people were less vigilant is a very difficult one, but not hopeless. We did manage to source or remove about 80,000 unsourced BLPs in a year back in 2010; we could probably screen all organization and corporate articles in 2 or 3 years starting with the oldest if there were more people interested in doing this.
The problem with even declared paid editing is NPOV. Some other declared paid editors have told me that their clients are reluctant to accept NPOV articles: they want advertisements. This has been confirmed by recent examples on-wiki, and by the nature of the arguments and many afds. It's also my experience that for those writing both paid and volunteer articles, the volunteer articles are better. It should be possible for us to find a way for paid editors to do more work in providing information for people writing articles. For example, we've been trying for many years with little success to persuade companies to provide freely licensed pictures of their notable products. But what is also needed is more volunteers interested in working on business topics.
Ultimately, I do not expect the measures I've mentioned or anything else now in view will completely solve the problem. They will help it. I'm going to make a guess that it will reduce the problem for incoming articles to half the present. Unfortunately, that will probably be matched by an increase in such articles for even smaller businesses. and for some currently under-represent countries.
The only way to solve the problem completely is to eliminate paid editing. The only way to eliminate paid editing is to require some sort of secure confidential identification for at least some types of articles. That would be a major change in the basic principle of Wikipedia, and would not currently be supported. Perhaps it will never be feasible to even discuss it in the future, because of the need to preserve privacy at least here external pressure. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
An interesting follow-up to our discussion here. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of article for Kesari ToursEdit

Kesari Tours article has been deleted from Wikipedia because it was repeatedly recreated for promoting Kesari Tours in the past (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kesari Tours). If you go through the content written by me, I have not mentioned about any awards and achievements of Kesari Tours as mentioned in the past articles. I have completely referred to facts and figures mentioned in the news sites and they don't intend to promote Kesari Tours. I have cross checked the articles mentioned in the past and I completely agree that they were misleading and inappropriate. My objective of creating Kesari Tours on Wikipedia is to lead audience with appropriate facts and figures rather than mislead them. I am quite aware about the guidelines for creating an article on Wikipedia and I have always tried to stick around with the facts. It will be really helpful if you can review the content written by me and further guide me to edit the content which can be further reviewed by you before I upload it on Wikipedia. It will be a learning for an aspiring Wikipedia contributor as well.

I am also putting forward this request because in India many people get their tickets booked from Kesari Tours and we can also add a column of criticism where we can include a couple of fraud cases that customers have faced. At the end of the day, Wikipedia should be able to spread correct information. I am an independent contributor and I don't support any organization. Hence I am not a supporter of Kesari Tours but I want audience in India to be informed about the presence of this firm just like all the other companies. All of my statements are supported by news facts. As said before, I will edit the article as per your guidance and going forward I can keep monitoring the page to avoid addition of any wrong information or promotional content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talkcontribs) 09:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I wil recheck. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talkcontribs) 05:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you have the chance to go through Kesari Tours article? If you guide me and send me a copy of the article, I can edit it and send it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talkcontribs) 12:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello sir, did you have the opportunity to go through the article? Kindly check and let me know how to edit it so that it can be put together again. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talkcontribs) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

    • needs response'

Deletion discussionEdit

there is a discussion that would benefit from your experienced editing here. (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Artist at AfDEdit

Hi DGG, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Waugh (2nd nomination). I sent it to AfD, and it has devolved into a Bludgeon fest, with at least one of the !Keep editors having Canvassed. The !keep editors have participated in less than 50 AfDs each (with the most confident of them, only voting with consensus 47% of the time), and it seems like they are forcefully attempting to claim a rather different set of expectations around Artist 4(b) than I have seen elsewhere at AfD. Furthermore, the Bludgeoning seems to have discouraged any new voices from participating. Your experienced and impartial advice is welcome, either here, or on the AfD. --Theredproject (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

    • 'needs response


When nothing but obits are cited, (some of which are in national RS) is that acceptable for notability of a recently deceased person who was a local social justice advocate 20 years ago? Just needing a gage for future reference. Atsme📞📧 02:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the source. I trust full editorial obits in the NYT (after 1896) and the London Times. I am unsure about any other paper in those two countries for recent years, however reliable they may be for other purposes. There are other papers I trust for various parts of the 18th thru early 20th centuries. There are presumably equivalent ones in other countries, but I am less familiar with their standards.
An increasingly common problem with all newspapers, including the NYT, (and some National biographies) is their coverage of representative people, rather than important people, for obits and otherwise. This has not yet infected the NYT obit section.
Another problem is the focus of the NYT in the early 20th century upon high society figures. This tends to affect more the wedding coverage, but they are what people paid attention to back them. I'm not sure how to handle that aspect. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  TY... Atsme📞📧 04:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


This supplement article, cited in Venous stasis, is from 2012. It includes a very precise breakdown of what the supplement sponsor is not allowed to do. HLHJ (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

yes, this may be a different type than the earlier pseuo-peer-revieweed articles I remember. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Joseph Bishop for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph Bishop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Bishop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Fair use of abstractsEdit

The older catalogues I've seen reproduce abstracts freely, and so do many modern catalogues and publishers. But I've heard, unreliably, claims that abstracts can't be used under fair use, although I can't find any source for that online. Does Wikimedia have a policy on this? Could we store an abstract of a copyrighted work in Wikidata? HLHJ (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I am uncertain whether using them in WP would be considered fair use in US law, but they are indeed often used as if they were; use in WP in particular might well be considered sufficiently transformative. However, actual Wikipedia policy is very much more restrictive. Under the current enWP rules for free content in the English Wikipedia, WP:NFCC, I cannot see how they would be permissible for use in an enWP article.
All projects are bound by the general WMF copyright policy--the enWP policy is a permitted exemption under that policy. I do not know whether Wikidata has considered a corresponding policy exemption--it would obviously have to be different than that of enWP and tailored to their particular purposes, and I cannot even guess whether the foundation would consider it acceptable . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
In the interim I did find one mention of abstract fair use online; here, scroll down to section 5.
I can't imagine they could be used in the article text; I was thinking of using them purely as a resource for searching for references in the bibliographic database being created on Wikidata, Wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData (which many expect to eventually become its own project, like Wikisource or Wikiquote). My own private bibliographic database mostly contains abstracts, because it makes it much easier to find the reference I need to cite.
Wikidata appears not to have copyright policy exemptions.[23] So it looks to me like this is something to discuss later as a possible exemption for a bibliographic database project, if I've understood correctly.
Thank you very much for your help, you made it much easier for me to figure out what I needed to know. HLHJ (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

re: deletion of Leonard Barry SmithEdit

Hello, David Goodman, with regard to the recent speedy deletion, I am curious whether you read the TALK page prior to the action? If so, could you elaborate upon the rationale for your decision? If not, can I provide those TALK points on this page? Thank you.

CanadianBiographies11111 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, I forgot to place the = symbol at the end of the heading, so hope you can still see this request.

CanadianBiographies11111 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I will get there tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • recheck

Hey look, a barnstar for you!Edit

  The Art+Feminism Barnstar
Thank you for your support for Art+Feminism!
this WikiAward was given to DGG by Theredproject (talk) on 00:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please remove speedy deletion tagEdit

Hello DGG, Thank you for reviewing our article as well as the information and guidance you offered. I'm very interested in having the tags removed from the article once it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Please let me know if there is any way I can help speed this process.

Again, thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujit.jha3 (talkcontribs) 06:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Another admin asked you some questions on your talk p. Please answer them. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10Edit

Hello DGG, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!


  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

  Guideline and policy news

  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

International Journal of Statistics and Medical InformaticsEdit

Hello DGG, I have noticed several SPA's adding thinly-veiled cite spam for this "journal" (in Clinical data management and a few other topics) and have reverted these additions. The added site is As you have a lot more experience with academia-related topics, would you mind taking a look at this site please to double-check my assessment? Despite its fancy title and nice layout the site's editorial team consists of 1 member named "Editor IJSMI" who is also the author of all articles (see author list on site). I am pretty sure this is not a reliable academic source per our RS guidelines, but a second opinion would be great if you got a bit of time. GermanJoe (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Recheck pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.

Amazing dissection of article sourcing at AfDEdit

I thought this was an impressive analysis by user:Mduvekot - I've never seen this much effort put into an AfD before, and I wanted to share it.[[24]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It's amazing, and impressive. So impressive that one can forget the individual data points are false binaries. I've discussed it in a little more detail at WP:Articles for deletion/Alexander Friedmann-Hahn. As the method is very likely to be used again, I'll try to give yet a fuller analysis. If not at this afd, at another. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

curators and galleristsEdit

On 4 April 2018 in an AfD for Jan Allen, you wrote: "Admittedly, curators are difficult to document unless they had published works that would qualify as NAUTHOR or NPROF,, but important curators do just that. The minor publications shown here do not." A few day later, in an AfD on ALexander-Friedmann-Hahn, you wrote: "We have no workable standards for gallerists. It is not just a business in the ordinary sense, but one of the auxiliary professions that facilitate the fine arts. Considering their significance in that professional network, I think we should be very liberal here; I would say the same about similar auxiliary professions in other fields, such as music and science. It's the nature of such professions to be overshadowed by the artists etc. they serve, and I've always thought we should interpret the GNG standards in line with the nature of available sources in the field." Earlier, you had commented in an AfD about Casey Caplan "I continue to disagree that the mere fact the art shows take place at a particular art gallery make either of them notable."

Can you help me understand that apparent discrepancy between those statements? Vexations (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I am still working it out, to be honest. There was a sentence that I wrote for the last AfD "This is somewhat different from my earlier position."; I in the end omitted it to avoid confusion; I see I should have left it in. In trying to figure out what to do, I will deliberately try to make a case for various positions to seewhat convinces me or others. AfD needs to experiment a little before it settles down -- premature guidelines are often a lasting error.
The increasing number of articles (and discussions) on fine arts, partly the result of Art+Feminism and related projects are showing our need for clearer standards. This is especially important because in advising new editors, we need to be able to tell them what is or is not likely to be accepted. That after all is rthe real need--not to decide what we would like to accept, but to guide contributors. Ifthe situation is unstable, as it is now, there's no good way to guide them. I have learned deal with it in editathons etc by telling them to play absolutely safe or their first article. The role of an advisor is to be conservative..
Some particular points:
Galleries vs Gallerists. This is a problem with many similar professions where the business is essentially dependent upon the expertise or reputation of an individual. Rarely is it appropriate to make an article for both unless there's some really special distinction. If it'smulti-generational or a partnership, the choice is easy: the gallery/firm/etc. If the individual has a reputation beyond the particular gallery , then it's easy also--in other words, if he meets WP:PROF as an expert, or WP:AUTHOR. If unsure, I tend to go with the person because its easier to write bio articles.
notability for the shows or the artist because of the gallery There may be some galleries whose selectivity can indicate the artist showing there is notable. It would take some degree of agreement between experts about which they are, and it would be nice if we could find actual sources for this instead of our judgment.
notability for the gallery because of who shows there. This shouldn't be a matter of our judgment--it should take sources.
Sources for notability. There are books about the profession of selling artworks, which do not have the possible bias ofbeing about individual galleries, which would ake good sources. I know more about 19th c. UK, but there should be something available for later periods also.
substantial . We need to stop using mentions as being adequate sources. We've done this in many circumstances before to show notability of clubs etc. There should by now be better sources available. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate the effort. Let's say that the roster of artists they represent contributes to notability if most or all of their artists are notable. Sprüth/Magers for example, represents Kenneth Anger, Keith Arnatt Estate, Richard Artschwager, John Baldessari, Bernd & Hilla Becher, John Bock, Alighiero Boetti, George Condo, Walter Dahn, Hanne Darboven, Thomas Demand, Philip-Lorca diCorcia, Thea Djordjadze, Robert Elfgen, Peter Fischli & David Weiss, Lizzie Fitch, Ryan Trecartin, Sylvie Fleury, Llyn Foulkes, Cyprien Gaillard, Andreas Gursky, Jenny Holzer, Gary Hume, Robert Irwin (artist), Donald Judd, de:Axel Kasseböhmer, Craig Kauffman, Karen Kilimnik, Astrid Klein, Joseph Kosuth, Kraftwerk, Barbara Kruger, David Lamelas, Louise Lawler, David Maljkovic, Anthony McCall, Robert Morris (artist), de:Reinhard Mucha, Jean-luc Mylayne, David Ostrowski, Otto Piene, Michail Pirgelis, Nina Pohl, Stephen Prina, Pamela Rosenkranz, Sterling Ruby, Thomas Ruff, Ed Ruscha, Analia Saban, Gerda Scheepers, Thomas Scheibitz, de:Frances Scholz, Andreas Schulze, Cindy Sherman, Stephen Shore, Alexandre Singh, Frank Stella, Robert Therrien, Ryan Trecartin, Rosemarie Trockel, Kaari Upson, Marcel van Eeden, John Waters, Andro Wekua, Andrea Zittel, so that seems pretty clear. (Note that Sprüth/Magers have been messing with their page, their website has been blacklisted etc. It was probably the intern, but I don't trust 'em) Now lets look at the roster of another gallery, Galerie Friedmann-Hahn: Josef Fischnaller, Giovanni Castell, Thomas Kaemmerer, Markus Fräger, Edite Grinberga, Anders Gjennestad, Sasa Makarová, Daniel Ludwig (artist), David FeBland, Christian Grosskopf, Anne Leone, Laura Nieto, olf Ohst, Mirko Schallenberg, Guido Sieber, Marc Sparfel, Marc Taschowsky, Donald Vaccino, Maximilian Verhas, Mia Florentine Weiss. Note that that the first in the second list is a highly promotional article by an SPA and the second notable artist has an article that was written by the same editor who wrote the article about the gallery. There's more tp say about that editor, but I'm trying not to poison the well. If you compare these two, it should be obvious that Sprüth/Magers is a blue-chip gallery that deals with artists whose works are in the most important museum collections and that F-H is in the words of a German editor a "third-rate gallery", or as I would put it more generously works in the lower-to-mid price range of the market. What objective criteria can we use in a notability discussion to make that distinction? WP:PROF works well; can we do something similar for creative professions?

Deletion of Doug Imbruce pageEdit

You recently deleted this page. However, the inventor and entrepreneur is notable, having won over a dozen "highest level" awards in the tech community (Webby's, Apple's "Best of", Time Magazine's "Best Startup CEOs", Business Insider's "Top 100 inventors in Silicon Valley", etc.) - all easily identifiable via a simple web search - and created technology still in use by major corporations including Yahoo! and Apple, with dozens of patent filings and notable sources within online search results and printed materials. He was a pioneer of automating the creation of video from data, as demonstrated via many cited news sources, and awarded patents. Deletion of the page seems unwarranted. The inventor remains a sought after expert, and reference materials on him are helpful to the technology community at large. He has authored articles in major publications including, but not limited to, Newsweek (on page one of his search results), and his inventions have featured prominently inside the pages of MIT technology review, the NY Times, and more. Please restore, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

it was deleted by Prod, and therefore I have restored it at your request. Anyone can still send it to WP:AfD if they wish, as that's the place where notability is finally determined. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Advice on Antoine Blondeau article.Edit

Dear David, I kindly ask for your advice on improving Draft:Antoine Blondeau assuming that you know a lot about Sentient Technologies having worked on Babak Hodjat’s article. I cleaned up somewhat 1/3 of the article after the “advert” tag was placed on it and would like to ask for some specific suggestions on how to edit it further. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

remove the minor material, such as funding from ... advisory committee of .. Remove material that is primarily about the company, which has its own article. You should know this sort of thing already. If you're going to do paid editing, be aware that writing a proper WP article requires NPOV, and most people paying for articles don't want that, but would rather include as much flattering material to highlight their importance as they possibly can. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
DGG very helpful, thank you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Should I keep the part about his investments? He is a venture investor after all? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft copyEdit

Hi DGG, Greetings to you. I am one of the NPP. At times, I move a page back to "draft" space for the creator to further develop the article or provide source, and I do leave a message to their talk page and inform what is needed to improve the page. I encountered a number of cases that the new editor recreate the same article in the main space without changing/improving anything on the article. Since the is a "draft" copy existed and a new "main space" copy is created, I can not re-move the "main space" copy back to the draft space. I need advise on what should I do next and what should happen to the draft copy? Thanks in advance for your assistance. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Z. JacobsonEdit

I filed a request, see WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson#Intro_discussion Rwbest (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia expose a review schedule for specific new articles that are still blocked by NOINDEX HTML tag (<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>)?Edit

Hi David,
I think source code of new Wikipedia pages (e.g., 26-Mar-2018 created new article: view-source: have a NOINDEX HTML tag (<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>) for up to 90 days, which makes page invisible to search engines such as Google. Is there a Wikipedia page that shows status (or queue, or schedule, or backlog, or ETA, or reviewing user) of New Page Patrol reviews of any specific new Wikipedia articles?
Thank you, sir.
- Mary

P.S. I'm not rushing anyone, or asking to prioritize or expedite. I know there are 5.6 million Wikipedia articles, and only a tiny squad of Patrollers. And we (Patrollers, Administrators, Contributors, Editors) are all volunteers. But I really strove in good faith to create a Wikipedia article that met Wikipedia excellent standards (notable, useful, neutral, factual, encyclopedic, supported by 3rd party evidence, referenced, accurate, spam-free, advertisement-free, not vandalism, not hoax, not violate copyright, not defamatory, not exploiting Wikipedia to earn money, not orphaned, etc). I'm just trying to learn how to see review status.

Marykartowski (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no schedule for reviewing. Everyone who does reviewing works independently on whatever pages they want to--some from the newly submitted articles, some from the oldest, some picking articles that interest them. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
(talkpage stalker) I took a look at the page. It's probably a notable topic but the page is not neutrally written. Tagged as such. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi Marykartowski, The folks working on the NPP backlog are at the point where the oldest articles we're reviewing are from 25 February at the moment. So the queue is approximately 697 long. Lemma Senbet Fund is 668 old, so it will likely take (at the very most) 29 days to get reviewed. The problem with the Special:Newpagesfeed is that it's very difficult to find articles that are in the middle of the queue. It's actually pretty unlikely that someone is looking at pages that were submitted in March because they're difficult to navigate to. I've looked at the article and decided to skip it. I have no idea what to do with it. My recommendation would be to remove words like "prestigious", "top tier", "hand-picked", "prolific", "rigorous", "leverages", "in-depth". In fact, I'd suggest avoiding adverbial phrases entirely. Vexations (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Request To ReviewEdit

Hello! I am a student at UC Berkeley and have created an article on ResistBot for a class assignment. I noticed you have done some work on founder Eric Ries' article and thought you might potentially be able to offer some constructive feedback on my work. If you know of any other users who could also lend a helping hand, that would also be appreciated! Sweet inaara (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

some factors to consider: watch out for WP:Close paraphrase, in this case with Recode; Recode publishes both technology news and material indistinguishable from technology press releases; interviews with the founder of the company especially in local media do not show notability and are not really reliable for anything other than what the founder wishes to say. See WP:NCORP; because of that factor I am not sure about the actual notability of either this program or of Ries (WP can be rather skeptical about the notability of people who have done a little bit of a number of different things). The program will be more clearly notable if it becomes discussed to a significant extent on mainstream national media. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Zenni OpticalEdit

Hey! I'd like to stick you with a question about Zenni Optical; the article was created three times, with the latest creation having been blanked by the author and subsequently moved to draftspace. The cross-namespace redirect was logically deleted, however, the draft remained abandoned and got deleted as well shortly after. Recently, the people behind the company asked me to restore and enhance their article, wherefore I started Draft:Zenni Optical using the deleted article and rewrote it using reliable sources only (I'm only not entirely sure about the reliability of, but it comes in handy for me to cite negative reception). Obviously, the article needs some oversight before it is published, and since I noted that you creation-protected, I wondered if you could do a double action for the draft: For once, could you check whether the article reads neutrally and whether it needs and work before being able to be published (Notability should be established through several sources that go in-depth with the topic, e.g. in the form of reviews). Secondly, as I meantioned, the target article is creation-protected; as such, if the presented draft is satisfactory, could you lift that protection and move the draft to mainspace? Thanks! Lordtobi () 17:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

please abridge the sale section: the place to find out the details is their web site.(But it is not clear if the $6.95 is for the frame, or complete glasses) Remove quotes from the company. We only include the CEO, not other officers. Replace most of the uses of the company name with "The firm" or "The company" or "It". Then let me know. And some of the pluses and minus obviously apply to all mail-order glasses: we may need an article on the concept. Remember to declare your involvement on the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey again, I trimmed the sale section like you asked and removed two mentions of "Zenni Optical" from the history section, though I cannot fit "the company" everywhere given that I'm talking about multiple companies at times. Paid involvement notice is already present on the talk page.
Regarding the inclusion of officers in the infobox, what makes you say that we only include the CEO? From what I see on most articles, the people most relevant to the company (can extend over many titles, not just CEO) are usually included; our guideline also states that we should use "Up to four key individuals closely associated with the company" and provides an example with more than just the CEO. Because of this, I think it should be justified to include the three people that are mentioned in sources (you can see commented out two further people that are addressed by the company but never in sources, and as such excluded). That's also the way I'd put it in unpaid articles. Lordtobi () 09:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
our practice is to only include below the ceo for a really major company (e.g., there are some executives at companies like Alphabet who even have separate articles). The general approach I think should be parallel to WP:EINSTEIN. When you see it elsewhere, it is likely to be the results of promotional editing--it would be fair to say that at least half our articles on companies are unsatisfactory , because standards in the past were lower and very few reliable editors really paid attention to this field except for some areas of special interest like computers and automobiles.
a little more generally, the infobox guidelines and listings of permissible fields were particular loose in earlier years, but people are now paying infoboxes much more attention, and some of them are already been cleaned up a little.
Looked at in a different way, there is a difference between what one can get away with and what is best practice. When I give advice, I always give the safest and most conservative advice. Anything else would be unfair to people who do as I suggest and might be challenged. And it is important to recognize that the effective standards are considerable higher for paid editing. Whether this is right or wrong may be open to question, but at the moment, that's the way people look at it.
DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that position on how to cover key people in the infobox is more your opinion than common usage, but since every editor may have an opinion, I fixed the issue to not have it stand in the way of getting the article out there. Lordtobi () 18:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey, any update? Lordtobi () 20:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    I'm eagerly awaiting your response. The draft has stood still for a couple weeks now, and IMO should be ready to be published given that all your issues have been addressed. As I stated, the target page was creation-protected ny you back in February and it'd be great if you could unlock it and move the draft there. Lordtobi () 08:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it will be more helpful if I post my comment where anyone else who would be reviewing the article could see it. I added it to the draft. Any admin can of course accept it if they disagree with my views about the work of paid editors, generally and in this instance. . DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Kosie MaraisEdit

Good day DGG

Your comment of today 26 April 2018 refers. I have added more citations specifically to show notability, regarding his Brandy, still made to his recipe today claiming world-wide recognition.

Thank you

User:Barry Ne

    • needs response'

Gunter BechlyEdit

Do you have any suggestions for how to proceed with addressing the deletion of Gunter Bechly? I submitted a request at WP:DRN but it was closed because it was supposedly "out of scope." Nobody seems to care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in this matter, but every dispute resolution option I'm reading about seems to suggest that there is no way to redress an illegitimate consensus.Snoopydaniels (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have a recommendation, the same one as before. Wait until I (or someone similarly experienced and not overly-committed to the issue) write a replacement article. Probably in 6 or 8 months, which is the time scale I use in such cases where re-creation is needed. I see aa perceived need to do it rapidly as over-committment. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Journey into Night and Draft:Reunion (Westworld)Edit

An editor AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs) claims these two article are not ready for mainspacing. A far as I know there is no rule that creating a sourced article is bold. His revert appears to be bold and against consensus as another editor has already thanked me for my edits. The discussion is here. Can you please return this to main space, I cannot do it because of the over edits It appears three editors there have already agreed with me. Valoem talk contrib 15:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. -- AlexTW 15:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no discussion therefore canvassing is impossible. When an experienced editor asks an admin to mainspace an article it is not canvassing. Both Another Believer and Galobtter all came to the article on their own. Valoem talk contrib 15:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Canvassing is posting on other user's talk pages to sway a discussion, instead of a neutral talk page. When a more active editor gives you suggestions, I recommend you take them on. -- AlexTW 15:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no discussion therefore no canvassing. I moved a draft article into main space with admin support. Three editors stated you are wrong here, DGG is an arbcom member often asked to resolve disputes. Valoem talk contrib 15:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
There is discussion on at least five separate talk pages, before this post. -- AlexTW 15:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The only appears on the talk page of Journey into Night with consensus in favor of retaining the article in mainspace. Valoem talk contrib 15:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Not the right one. Cheers. -- AlexTW 15:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Valoem, my being in arb com has nothing at all to do with content disputes. Skill in content building is not one of the things considered in elections, arb com has no direct authority over content, and arb com will not directly intervene in content disputes until they become so heated that conduct is also involved.
The reason I am sometimes asked to review content problems is because I participate widely at AfD and similar discussions, and therefore know in most fields not just the guidelines but the actual present consensus. I can therefore try to give advice that reflects not my own opinion on what ought to be in WP, but what will or will not in practice be accepted.
It seems to me that we have articles about individual episodes on many major shows. Whether we ideally should or not, we do. The question is whether Westworld is a sufficiently major show. Considering how sources like the NYT discuss each episode both in advance but afterwards, I think it is. If anyone wants to try afd, they can, but I think AfD will give a result of keep. In fact, I was surprised to see that we don't already have articles on the most important characters, because we do have them on some similar shows. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)\
As always your input is appreciated. I also have had issues with editors going from 0 to 100. I asked Graeme to main space the article and immediately Alex makes canvassing accusations which I don't appreciate, there was not even a discussion opened. In these cases I do not feel ANI is worth it due to how time consuming it is, I generally turn to the opinions of editors who I find knowledgeable. If you believe the article is worthy, can you mainspace it again for me. I cannot as edits on top require deleting the redirect. Valoem talk contrib 17:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm getting tremendously confused here. Do I need consensus to create an article? Isn't creating then AfDing the proper procedure? It's strange the resistance I'm getting regarding an article on an episode of Westworld. Can someone main space it? Valoem talk contrib 17:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigham D. MadsenEdit

Also see--> William J. Hamblin

When considering academic authors, by what rough measures do you, as an editor, decide whether his or her work has: been cited/reviewed enough? received prestigious enough of awards? &c &c--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I use two standards.
Awards is relatively straightforward: the highest national or international level in the field.
1. the level of work which would qualify for full professorship or at least tenure at a research university of the very highest standing. In the traditional humanities that is usually two books by a major academic publisher. For sciences, it goes by citations, and it varies by subject.
2. Comparison with others in the field., especially those with such positions.
Books, as such: being the leading or one of the leading books in the subject, as judged primarily by library holdings (and to some extent by citations--allowing for the very long time lag.) DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
== COI claim that needs attention ==

Hi DGG, from the few administrators I have come across, you are the only active one I can think of who could advice me on this. There is an onging attempt to purge Wikipedia of Baba related articles. Given the scarcity of reliable independent sources some may have to go. My concern however is on a strange or maybe uneducated COI claim made by the nominator to User talk:Dazedbythebell#Note. Now this user states on his user page that he is a follower of Meher Baba. Since there is no organization sanctioning Baba followers, this is much like one saying I am a follower of Plato or Aristotle. Yet there is a COI warning that this user should not edit Baba related articles. Much of the logic used is that all these articles are promo spam and therefore a Baba follower should "refrain from pursuing promotional activities over here" or one may be banned or topic restricted. Now this is equivalent to credo policing. I may laugh, but it also has to be acted upon and I am not sure what is best to do. Simply "call in an admin"? How does one stop such a COI claim? Reason with persons who simply sees "cult cruft" at the sound of Meher Baba? I tried but all I got is "sources please" (period). I do not state I am a Baba follower, but if I do? Why should I then be exempt from editing these articles? Isn't this credo policing? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 20:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)  Done

Genesis MiningEdit

Hi DGG, I would like to take the next step towards re-opening the Genesis Mining stub. Please see our previous discussion from 5th February 2018. As you recommended, we have created an article about the company and I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at it in my colleague’s sandbox: User:MiaMlnr/sandbox

It is very basic, and further edits should be done by the Wikipedia community. Do you think it would be possible to lift the protection?

20:48:35, 11 May 2018 review of submission by OAKS222Edit

Dear DGG --

I resubmitted the draft -- Here I just want to say what changes I made.

First, I tried to remove all the "tribute to Legéndy" remarks; also I added a few more explanatory notes to the scientific discussion, to make the essay more informative to encyclopedia readers. I addressed your four instructions as follows:

(1) I cut the early part of the biography to its bare bones --

(2) I included the two engineering firms referred to: ITT Avionics and Singer-Kearfott (now part of Marconi Electronic Systems) --

(3) I moved away from the discussion of individual papers, and grouped the research-related sections by subject matter, with the published papers only cited where they were relevant for supporting various statements. In the process, I greatly shortened the text and left out a few of the research items that I thought were less interesting to the readers. --

(4) The "nonstandard career" description mainly refers to Legéndy's neuroscience work, as the physics work (on helicons) is essentially made up of papers that came out of Legéndy's doctoral dissertation at the Cornell Physics Department.

-- In regard to helicons, the most complimentary third-party comment I can mention is from Boswell, the man whose discoveries changed the helicon phenomenon from an obscure little footnote to plasma physics into a veritable goldmine. The "Boswell 1970" reference (in its "Preface to the internet edition" section, dated August 2004) includes the sentence: "Charles Legendy, one of the real pioneers of the helicon game, has..."

-- In the neuroscience field I included a citation from Donald Hebb, a big-name contributor to psychology and neuroscience. In Hebb (1976) he cites the brain capacity estimate from Legéndy (1967) in the introduction.

-- The other third-party citation I included in the neuroscience field was on the "Poisson surprise test." It is from Gourévitch and Eggermont (2007) which offers a critique of the test (which I mention in the new Wikipedia draft), but puts that in perspective in the Abstract, which states that "the Poisson-surprise (PS) method [of Legéndy and Salcman, 1985] has been widely used for 20 years"; and in the "Discussion" section, which states: "The PS method ... has been the most widely used method of burst detection ..."

OAKS222 (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

reply forthcoming . DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Most of the material in the physics section should be moved to the article on helicons, leaving just the work he did himself; as for the neuroscience , it is necessary to separate his notable work (as judged by citations) from his miscellaneous work, instead of treating it all similarly. I will see what I can do. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing Lookout (company) pageEdit

Hi DGG, you have cleaned up some inappropriate prior edits from my predecessors at Lookout. I am trying to vindicate the page by doing things properly/neutrally. Can you help? This is the proposed draft that we would like reviewed.

Thank you, Eileen Eileen at lookout (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


01:33:57, 22 May 2018 review of submission by OAKS222Edit

Dear DGG —

Thank you for the (May 18) improvements to the “Draft: Charles Rudolf Legéndy” article. Yes, I should have thought of that, you are right to move some of the helicon paragraphs to the “Helicons (physics)” article.

If it’s OK, I also moved one other paragraph (the one beginning with “One property of the waves..”), because without it the next paragraph (“The practical significance..”) does not make sense. And in the place where that paragraph was I did not leave a void, but left some of the “surface mode” text in place and added some more to it, tying the physics to the efficient plasma generation — because predicting the surface mode was one of Legéndy’s main helicon contributions.

If it’s all right, I also added to the “Legéndy is best known for..” paragraph (at the beginning of the article) that helicons are also used in nuclear fusion reactors and in space propulsion. Both of these items have now been moved to the “Helicons” article, and yet they are also a legitimate addition to the “Legéndy is best known for” paragraph.

OAKS222 (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I had not finished. In rewriting, I work in incremental stages. He did not discover helicons--he contributed to their theoretical explanation. But he did not do any of the work involving their use for nuclear fusion reactors or space propulsion,-(for that matter, nobody has yet actually used them for space propulsion.) So really none of the applied material belongs in his bio at all.
I hadn't started in the neuroscience part yet.When iI do it, I will decide what is worth emphasising on the basis of what has gotten most cited. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

still needs further work


Moving a Draft to Mainspace for Purpose of DeletionEdit

You may ignore this post if you choose, but User:Legacypac suggested that I ask you. User:Legacypac has frequently, in discussions at Miscellany for Deletion, said that if a draft is not deleted in draft space, it should be moved to article space where it can be nominated for one of the A criteria for speedy deletion or Articles for Deletion. At least, that is what I think they are saying. I haven't actually seen them do that, and maybe there is ancient history that I don't understand. I think that moving a draft to article space that one thinks should be deleted is a terrible idea, and that the place for a page of questionable merit is draft space. In any case, I just tried to ask Legacypac, again, about these statements, this time with regard to Draft:Kopparapu Duo Poets, and was asked to ask you, with the comment that Legacypac thinks that I am trying to get them sanctioned. (At least I think they were implying that I and others are trying to get them sanctioned.) I know that I am not trying to get Legacypac sanctioned, but am asking them to explain a position that they repeatedly express that I am unable to understand or agree with. So: Do you think that sometimes drafts should be promoted, or moved from draft space to article space, in order to open up a mainspace deletion discussion? What is your view? I am not asking what Legacypac thinks. Only Legacypac can explain, and after their unfortunate short-term de-reviewing, they are in a bad mood. If you explain, thank you. If you disagree, thank you for explaining. If you would prefer not to discuss this issue, I will let it drop. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with unsatisfactory AfC drafts is somewhat disputed. My opinion on the current situation is that the general mechanism for removing them is of course MfD. If there is dissatisfaction with a particular MfD decision, there's Deletion Review. If there's a feeling that MfD discussions in general are unreliable, then like any WP process, the remedy is to encourage more participation. If there's a view that additional deletion reasons are needed, then that can be discussed also. The situation is confused enough without being provocative.
There are some instances where it makes sense to take a questionable draft to mainspace and discuss it in an AfD. The standard for acceptance of a draft is officially that it is likely to pass AfD (though I and almost everyone else now considers "likely" to be somewhere in the range of 66 to 90%, not a bare 51%). But such numbers give a false impression of precision: decisions at AfD are inconsistent and unpredictable. In borderline cases, it may be impossible to really give a prediction, and the only way to find out may be to take it there and see. I've done it myself in some cases where there seemed no consistent practice, or an unusual question. But just doing it to get the content deleted is not a good idea.
If a contributor objects to a particular reviewers interpretation, they can submit it again for someone else to review (no reviewer should insist on being the only person to handle a particular AfC--though some contributors seem to think we do that ). And of course if someone insists on taking their chances and it isn't a speedy candidate, the simplest thing to do is to let them try. A delete at AfD will discourage improper re-creation. There are many good articles that were deleted that shouldn't have been, and many foolish ones that shouldn't have been allowed to stay--it is rarely productive to spend too much individual of community energy in arguing about a single article. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

More AFC ThoughtsEdit

You wrote: "If a contributor objects to a particular reviewers interpretation, they can submit it again for someone else to review (no reviewer should insist on being the only person to handle a particular AfC--though some contributors seem to think we do that)." I agree, but will comment. First, I and some other reviewers do not like to see a draft resubmitted without addressing the comments of the reviewer. If a contributor disagrees, they have semi-automatic options to discuss on the reviewer's talk page or to discuss at the AFC help desk, or can accept the advice to discuss at the Teahouse. If I see a draft resubmitted as is or essentially as is without addressing the comments, and without an explanation of why it is being resubmitted, I will not only decline but caution the contributor. Some contributors will resubmit over and over again without material changes (which often winds up at MFD - I would like to be able to report this as a conduct issue). Second, what do you mean about some contributors think we do that? I know that some contributors expect that a reviewer will follow a draft through the review process. I try to be diplomatic with them and get other reviewers to comment. Third, I don't know of any reviewer who insists on being the only person to handle a particular draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure DGG means some authors think a reviewer follows a draft all the way through multiple reviews. I'm not aware of any reviewer that tries to do that. The decline templates (wrongly) encourage discussion on the reviewer's talk so I understand where that idea comes from. See Draft talk:Ciera Rogers for an example where I think a move to mainspace and a test at AfD is in order. This user is not going to take AfC no for an answer and the topic - a social media personality - is one of those grey areas where it could go either way. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, many new contributors think that the same reviewer follow a draft all the way through, and it is natural that they think this way, because most of the world works in that fashion, especially when it's a matter of following up on suggested revisions, not outright rejection. In fact, OTRS at Wikipedia works that way: for email inquiries and complaints and requests for pages, the same OTRS agent follows the entire case unless they unlock it. The OTRS agents are by and large more experienced than the AfC reviewers, and make fewer mistakes. But I have seen the same sort of bad advice in both places, and the standard OTRS messages are even more nonspecific and unhelpful than the AfC ones.
And I have also seen reviewers try to keep a AfC case resubmissions returned to them. I haven't seen any absolutely insist, but I have seen it encouraged; and it is easily possible to watchlist a draft--there are many instances of successive reviews by the same person.
When a review is completely wrong, and the submitter is experienced enough to know that, it can make sense to resubmit unchanged, though anyone with some degree of subtlety will make at least some changes. I have however certainly seen people resubmit impossibly unacceptable material unchanged, on the hope that the next time they will get some reviewer careless enough to accept it--and they sometimes see their hope fulfilled.
Ideally, we when we encounter a previous bad review, we would follow it up with the reviewer. This is fairly easy to do with beginners at it, but much harder with those who have experience and have been doing it wrong consistently. I do sometimes, and try to word it as a suggestion. Sometimes, it makes a difference; sometimes I get ignored or challenged. As with similar situations at CSD or OTRS. I am very reluctant to really take issue with anyone whom I know to be stubborn, and even more reluctant to follow to the conclusion. I could easily spend all my time here on this, and although it might help WP, it would not help my own mental equilibrium. If it were a regular system of review or audit, it would be less personal. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I see bad decline reviews - I just override them and note up the talkpage. I have yet to see a strong enough pattern of bad declines to start a serious discussion. I assume most of us watchlist draft we touch anyway which will bring reviewers back to the page sometimes. Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


Do you think an obituary in reputable newspapers like Telegraph et al is an auto-indicator of encyclopedic notability, in the event no other significant covg. about the subject could be discovered?~ Winged BladesGodric 05:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric - That would depend on the newspaper's obituary policy. Some newspapers, including the Washington Post, which is considered a newspaper of record, have a policy that they will publish a true news obituary for any long-term resident of the area of the newspaper. (A long paid death notice that reads like an obituary is a different matter, but your question has to do with true obituaries under the byline of one of the obituary staff reporters.) Therefore a news obituary in the Washington Post is not in itself an indicator of encyclopedic notability. Other newspapers have mileage that may vary. Does that fail to answer your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
For the New York Times it is a clear determinant of notability at least for 1896+. I'm told this is true for the London Times also. I am insufficiently familiar with the Telegraph. The distinctions Robert McC gives above about paid obits is important to keep in mind in all cases. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
IMO a full obituary in a broadsheet paper (UK: Times, FT, Observer, Telegraph, Grauniad) is normally a non-trivial reliable independent source, so counts towards WP:GNG. Paid obits, not so much. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the distinction is that the NYT and the Times are so reliable as to be sufficient by themselves without needing other sources. As for the others, as I said, I'm not familiar enough to know if they fall in this category. And for the US, a local paper regardless of format is I think usually not reliable for notability, and I think there is no clear level above that where a clear division can be drawn. To some extent I judge by the nature of the obit. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sometimes. Yes for Obits published by universities. It probably depends on the author. The obit should make a claim of notability if it is being used as a claim of notability. Newspapers obits are paid, so take with salt. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, replying to User:SmokeyJoe and following up to my comment and that of DGG: There may be three types of death reports in a newspaper, and one should be mindful of the distinctions. The first is a news obituary, which is written by a reporter, and is not paid for. Different newspapers have different policies on who qualifies for these. A news obituary in The Times or the NYT is an indication of notability. A news obituary, written by the obit writer, in the Washington Post is not necessarily an indication of notability. The second is a conventional paid death notice, normally placed by the undertaker. These are no indication of notability. The third is a hybrid, a paid death story, written like an obituary, but paid for by family. These can be mistaken for news obituaries, but they are not, and are not indications of notability. True obits are not paid for; they are written by staff, and they may or may not indicate notability; but true obits and hybrids can be confused, and require careful reading. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Well put, I agree. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
And I agree also. I think RMC's are exactly the right criteria. DGG ( talk )

(advice on articles on academics)Edit

speaking generally.

(1) In reviewing this article, what I noticed first was the obviously incorrect name of the department; this sort of error is a warning signal to look at the original sources myself. This led me to the apparent vagueness and over-expansiveness of the claims; that's a common indication of careless promotional writing. PR staff, even in academic institutions, tend not to be concerned with getting that sort of detail correct. Because of this, in the absence of a formal CV it can be quite difficult to verify the details. This does not necessarily indicate an actual conflict of interest, because PR writing so pervades the world that many beginners here tend to fall into a similar style.
(2) All of the descriptions of a person in their lecture announcements and the like sre normally written by their publicity team or copied from their own statements. They never have third-party authority, no matter where reprinted. The extremely close similarity of them all demonstrates their common origin.
(3) There is an unfortunate tendency in Wikipedia to try to document statements by cherry-picking quotations that happen to use the word or phrase. References have to be used in context.
(4) There is a frequent tendency in Wikipedia to emphasise the current interests of a person as they themselves describe them--they not unreasonably want to write about what they are currently interested in. But WP is an encyclopedia , and must treat their career as a whole. Sometimes what fascinates a person in their later career is not what the major real contribution is. Sometimes it is otherwise. Here it seems to be a mixture: their recent "neuroscience" work is too trivial to mention, but the current high administrative position in the Church of England is probably of greater importance than their earlier authorship and consulting.
(5) In dealing with an author, it is often helpful to organize the description of their work around their successive major books.
As advice, to learn about notability, observe and participate at AfD. To lean about sources, keep up with the WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard. The BLP Noticeboard is helpful also, but it mainly deal with particualrly contentious articles,not how to deal with routine material. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Authority controlEdit

As you would know, {{Authority control}} is used at the bottom of many articles with links showing how the topic is catalogued at various libraries. A discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Authority control is questioning the merits of the template on the basis that it may violate WP:EL by unduly linking to external websites, and that many of the links are unhelpful. Do you have any thoughts on the value of {{Authority control}}, or any thoughts on how to contact editors who might have knowledge of its use? Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I see it lists the control numbers of various national libraries. It is routine practice in libraries to include whatever identifiers are available, in order to make sure that the record can be found under any possible search. If this produces duplication, it does no harm. If they do not agree, it provides links to the data for resolving the disagreement. I see the discussion mentioned the possibility thatt these could be used for search terms, but not routinely display--that seems a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your last edit of Arts_et_Métiers_ParisTechEdit

Hello DGG, I could not get the reason behind your last modification of Arts_et_Métiers_ParisTech. I might be missing something but nothing seemed to be wrong with this content. Maxicar (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Maxicar, I went to the article to remove the name of someone else whose article I deleted, since the rule is to remove names of alumni unless they are notable in the sense of having a WP article, or when it is immediately obvious from what is said on the list that they would certainly be qualified for one. When I do this, I try to clean up other redlinks also. Jonathan Benassaya is cofounder of Deezer. a company that has an article, but it is not such a major company that it is obvious that his position would justify an article; checking the frWP article on him, I continue to think it not obvious. But the way to proceed is to write the article, add the name back, and see if the article gets deleted.
Roland Vardanega is different. He was listed a little confusingly as "intermediate CEO of PSA Peugeot Citroën"; this is a sufficiently important company that its CEO would obviously get an article, but I was unsure of the meaning of "intermediate president", whether it meant a president of one division or a president during one of the changes of ownership. Checking the enWP article on the company, he isn't mentioned. So the removal is justified, but , checking now the enWP article again, I see it mentions none of the earlier executives and it certainly ought to--one of them even has a picture and a quote in the article without a statement of his role anywhere. Checking the frWP article on him, he certainly should have an article. So I'm restoring it, and will myself translate/rewrite at least a stub of the frWP article to have one here. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks Sir... for explaining to me about the page for the late Ali Banat Farid999111 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Student draftsEdit


Our practices about drafts in general are quite unsettled at this time--I think everyone involved knows the system is confusing, over-complicated, cumbersome, much too slow, and unsatisfactory in almost every respect. It is effective neither at getting usable material into mainspace, nor keeping unacceptable material out of Wikipedia. Everyone centrally involved has a different idea of how to fix it, and some of them are trying out their ideas at cross purposes.
The only guaranteed safe way at present for a student to proceed at this point is to do the development outside Wikipedia. Personally, I think we should be able to do better: one of the basic concepts of Wikipedia is that it should itself be a place for people to develop articles. I hope to be able to make better suggestions in a few weeks. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

AfD notifications for Fifth Wall VenturesEdit


Last night, after completing a thorough update of Fifth Wall at a sandbox here: User:BC1278/sandbox/Fifth_Wall and adding the individual proposed changes to Talk, I decided to write a note on Talk pinging all contributors to the article of the AfD and update, with a string of @, then notes to their Talk page. I expected there would be several but upon looking at View History, there was only one, the original reviewer who had also expanded the article. So I modified to note to only notify that user, since they were the only one to have contributed directly to the article.

Dom from Paris objected to User: Jytdog that this was canvassing, and as discussed at the user's page, User_talk:Lake_Ontario_Wind#Article_Deletion_discussion, User: Jytdog agrees this was canvassing. Perhaps you agree, too. I don't know. I wish there had been 5 editors to notify, to show how I would have handled it, but there were not.

I explain the above only to provide context for a question/request, since it seems wise to get feedback in advance. I believe WP: Finance and WP: Private Equity should be notified of the AfD, as it relates to these projects. And perhaps WP: Business. But I am loathe to do anything without raising it for feedback first. So that is what I am doing now.

BTW, the original Fifth Wall reviewer was a member of WP: Finance, has been a member of Wikipedia since 2006, and noted on their user page about 15 articles they created or expanded. This is why I thought they would be an appropriate independent reviewer in the first place. I had asked several experienced editors in that project to look at the draft. However recently, since WP: PAID was updated, and Jytdog raised some concerns about this practice, I posted a question at COIN if it was OK to ask subject matter experts in appropriate Wiki projects to do independent reviews of new articles (something I had done just a few times), and the editors who weighed in said all new articles should go through AfC, so that's what I'll do.BC1278 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Wikiprojects are groups of all WPedians interested in a topic, and are not restricted to those expert in the topic. They have no independent authority, and have only as much autonomy as the community as a whole is willing to give them. To what extent they can set standards in their area depends upon the extent to which the community as a whole through its actions at afd supports them. This varies by project. A few specialized projects -- some small, some large -- have great respect in the community, but even they can lose that respect if the rest of us decide not to follow their lead.
Experienced editors likewise. In particular standards change, and in the field of articles about business, the standards have changed to the extent that the change is shown not just by practice but a far-reaching change in the basic relevant guideline, NCORP, and its wide acceptance at AfD. In any particular field, there are sometimes a few currently dominant editors, but they can lose their dominance quickly if their views no longer find acceptance. And among those most active, there will usually be some who try to maintain the current status, and some who seek to change it.
I show different sides in different situations, and try to keep them apart: when making a decision I strictly follow the current consensus; when giving others advice, I try to give the safest advice possible; when arguing for my views, I often try to lead the community a little. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


DGG, I respect the view your expressed at Nextdoor very much and in the normal course of events, that's ideal. There's a proposal, an independent editor reviews it and says yes or no or asks me to make changes. Maybe there is some discussion or an RfC. It's all pretty straightforward. All I tell people who hire me is that I will try to get them a fair article, stay strictly within WP policy and act ethically above all else. I turn down maybe 4 out of 5 people who ask for help because their requests seem invalid to me. I'm independent - no one can hoist an assignment on me. I come up with my own article language for a proposal, based on what I think is fair and allowable under WP policy, and only have clients do a review for accuracy.

For Nextdoor, I am only hoping for fairness and NPOV from editors who take the time to review all the relevant sources. emark came after a specific matter in question had been decided contrary the editor's position.

Any mistakes in judgment are my own, as the company has only asked the article be fair. They're leaving it to me to decide how to best accomplish that.-BC1278 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278
Fair" tends to mean, "a fair statement of my POV". Our rule is neutral, as judged by those with no stake in the matter, not a negotiated compromise between NPOV and a subject's position. I appreciate the difficulties our policy must present for you, which is one of the reasons we should consider abolishing paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

“Draft: Charles Rudolf Legéndy” (I now rewrote the “neuroscience” section)Edit

Dear DGG —

I would very much like you to revisit my “Legéndy” draft, if at all possible!

Somehow the draft landed on the desk of Bradv, but I think he is somewhat disrespectful. He is not paying it much attention - whereas it is clear that you have gone into in-depth detail. (Bradv wrote a rejection letter, saying “please cite your sources” and “please see ‘references for beginners’” - and then when I sent him three third-party references from the Draft, he apparently lost interest.)

I now rewrote the “neuroscience” section - now it has just an introductory paragraph and then two paragraphs, each devoted to one of the two neuroscience items supported by third-party references. OAKS222 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Any reviewer may review any article--people generally select articles to review at random or in sequence as submitted; some, like myself, tend to look for one in my areas of interest. Nobody may monopolize reviewingan AfC, just as nobody may monopolize an article. However, I will however take another look at this. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Message from OAKS222 (Re: "Draft: Charles Rudolf Legéndy")Edit

Dear DGG —
Thank you very much for revisiting the “Legéndy” draft.
Legéndy’s citation figures are not impressive; the more impressive part is the quality of the citing authors. The 1964 brain capacity paper only had 52 citations, but those include Malsburg, Buzsáki, and Hebb, who had some “best sellers” with 1,518, 3,720, and 27,843 citations, respectively. Similarly, the 1985 Poisson surprise paper has just 399 citations (although that is respectable for a “methods paper”), but the citing papers include one with 2,645 citations (Abeles) and one with 1,016 citations (Schall). In the helicon work, the 1961 paper has only 172 the direct citations (and the citing papers some 300-600 citations), but here the later industrial application to computer chip manufacturing is more important than the academic response. OAKS222 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Trying to justify an article by quality of citing authors strikes me as the sort of stretching of the criteria associated with COI editing. We do not omit giving the highest citation figures even if they are not impressive: we're writing NPOV articles, not trying to make a CV look as strong as possible. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes - clear - sorry! But I just couldn't resist. Hebb's comment is made to carry more weight by the fact that his book has 27,843 citations ... OAKS222 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Beck questionsEdit

Hi DGG. Thanks for the feedback provided in the draft review. I have to admit I'm a bit confused, however. After asking for more extensive feedback at the Articles for Creation help desk I received generic pointers that in all honesty I had already gone over, both before creating the draft and with you after reviewing the first version. I know you must be working long hours to deal with the large amount of current submissions; if it were possible to discuss individual sources, would you be willing to point me in the right direction, be it through one of your colleagues or yourself?

Thank you for your advice, JaneStrauss (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You still have not done what I suggested on May 10, or what DESiegel suggested on May 14. We both said pretty much the same thing, and so would any experienced editor here. I'm not sure why you want more specifics. For example,we both dsaid tyo remove the references mainly about his company--it should be obvious what they are. I said to remove interviews with him. Remove them. DES said to remove press releases. Do that. DES told you that some major newpapers are usually OK--it should be obvious that most of the newspapers you cite are not major. You are being paid to write the article, not me, or him, and I can see no reason why any other responsible volunteer should want to do work for which you are being paid. I & others will sometimes do so for a real reason, such as when the subject is extremely important and not having it would be a serious gap in WP's coverage, but that is not true for the owner of a barely notable company. And I, but not many others, am sometimes willing to help Public relations people learn how to write WP articles, but I will only do that if it is clear the editor will in fact understand.
I can also advise you that I am not sure how much work is worth your putting into the article, for it is very likely to be listed for deletion in any case, because the notablity is in my opinion insignificant, and the only viable article is the one on the company. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • G13 expected in November

Notability for departments within universities?Edit

If you have a moment, may I please trouble you for an opinion on where/how the notability bar is set for pages for individual departments within universities? I see "expected outcomes" suggests they are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field but I'm wondering how this is assessed: at NPP I came across this one for Texas Tech's philosophy department essentially made of a few thin sources (several campus student paper refs since added), two sentences of prose and a list of redlinks to people who mainly don't seem (at cursory review) to be notable. When I redirected (Texas Tech's main page already has a content fork for "academics" with plenty of room to expand), the page creator reverted saying "Please afd". So that I might have a better index on such things--does AfD seem appropriate to you or would you let it be?

An additional reason I wanted to ask you (beyond your particular expertise in universities) is that I share your concern for clogging up AfD with school matters when there's so much commercial promo to be dealt with, and the latter so much more detrimental to the encyclopedia--but then, this one felt like promo to me (and no doubt universities and departments, especially in the US, have strong economic incentives to seek opportunities for promotion.) So I wasn't sure.

Thanks much for any thoughts. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I will find out at AfD! Though will of course continue to be very glad for your thoughts in whatever venue, especially as I think about how I should balance such entries with other AfD concerns going forward. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Possibly these pages are created in good faith by ex-students or academics, but universities are big business these days, so in my view articles like these could also be seen as a form of advertising. I agree that there may be bigger priorities on Wikipedia, but this author seems to be blatantly refusing to improve the article or prove notability. Sionk (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)2 The bar should be set pretty high on these, but for example the English department at Cambridge (with F.R. Leavis etc) has had almost as much written about it as the Wars of the Roses. Some departments have been very influential in the development of an entire subject area, but most deserve at best a section in the uni's article. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I consider the appropriate standard to be world-famous within the discipline, either currently or historically. This could also be worded, as about the 5 or 10 best known in the discipline, on a world-wide basis. There is a possible narrower standard, famous enough for outsiders to know about it. There are in my opinion a few universities where some or even most of the departments do meet this qualification, and a few dozen others that will have one or two such departments. They are rarely a matter of general interest significant enough for an encyclopedia. Regardless of the possible promotional intent, the articles usually are indistinguishable from the department web pages, which are characteristically written to attract the interest of prospective graduate students. I don;t think the 1pm has much to do with the rise of big business influence--the academic world from its medieval origins to the present has been in large part dependent on reputation, because a department becomes famous by attracting students and faculty that will make it famous.
As is usual at WP, most of the departments that need articles do not have them, while most of the articles we do have are not appropriate, I've always meant to work on the ones that are needed. I fully share Innisfree987's concern about clutter; WP does need more coverage of the academic world, but this is best done thru a biographical approach, increased attention to particularly notable books, and the NPOV presentation of academic tendencies.
(As limitations, I can judge best for the US, and sometimes the UK, and I may not be aware of developments in the last 10 or 15 years.) To give an example of my standards, in library science there have been only two, both defunct: Chicago and Columbia. In ornithology, there's one US department more famous than any other: Cornell, both now and historically. In a very large & influential field like Physics, there might be over a dozen.
There are beginning to be a few truely reliable sources: institutional history by outside scholars. Student newspapers and alumni publications are never reliable for this, nor are isolated statements of excellence without context. In most cases, it has to go by documentation of the ranking and inference from the faculty and alumni. Because of the need to show influence, they will mostly be found in the oldest and most famous research universities. As a caveat, a single famous personality is not enough to make a department famous. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
No, indeed. A good test might be (for historical ones) whether sources talk of a "Fooish school" - see Vienna School for examples - apart from music, we have 4 articles on groups essentially based at university departments. Also Cambridge School (intellectual history) etc. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes quite--had a similar thought about the Chicago School being an unimpeachable claim of notability for those department, but wondered where we drew the line afterward (since by contrast we are quite liberal with secondary schools--appropriately, in my mind.) But unlike secondary schools, which if outside a public school system will have no place in the encyclopedia if deleted, departments can always be covered on their college's page until a content fork is truly required. So nothing is lost if one holds the line a bit more closely. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much DGG for these thoughts; very clarifying. True indeed about academia always running on reputation (and incentive to promote thus nothing new). I think this case just particularly smelled off to me because the original links were touting the master's program in particular, and in a field where a doctorate is the standard terminal degree, master's programs are typically less a source of intellectual capital than just ... regular capital.
Agree very much that scholarly institutional histories are the best means of validating significance; and conveniently also serve wiki-notability standard's other purpose, i.e. to identify not only the most important subjects but the ones for which we have sufficient independent sources to write something balanced and fully realized without resorting to original research. Perhaps if I run out things to write for fun (!), I'll dig into my collection of those materials. But yes meanwhile I think I'll carry on with biographies and sometimes books; I'm not sure how many academic departments I really feel excited enough about to want to work up a summary of their institutional history. Probably just the ones I like to imagine I've done in an alternate universe (so... just HistCon, really.)
Thanks again! Innisfree987 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


Having a party tonight and sharing a cookie with you for your help over the years


I hit twenty four thousand edits tonight and became a senior editor on Wikipedia. Thank for your help over the years. -O.R.Comms 03:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

your opinion please...Edit

I just drafted a very short essay on civility, User:Geo Swan/Pick one. If you have time, I'd appreciate your opinion. Your talk page readers are invited to comment too, at User talk:Geo Swan/Pick one.

I think you are a prime example of someone in the first quadrant, of User:Geo Swan/Pick one#Four quadrants

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Redrafted OLX as requestEdit

Tried to follow all your recommendations. There had actually been a fair bit of updating by other editors since I wrote my draft, some of it with no sourcing or only primary sources. So I took care of that too. User:BC1278/sandbox/OLX-rev. -BC1278 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278


Quick note on Adam PrtizkerEdit


Saw your note on the delete discussion for Assembled Brands. Here's what I'd say. Adam Pritzker has already co-founded two companies (also General Assembly) of note; is also written about because he is from one of the wealthiest families in the world, with 11 billionaires; and co-founded a political non-profit, which while not notable yet IMO, has attracted meaningful press coverage.

So this is not the same situation as Ale Resnik, who is known as this point for just the one company. Pritzker is known for many things already and merits an article. I could see the argument where the CEO or founder of a company should not get their own article, as you suggested, where it's essentially just a breakaway of the main company article, but not vice versa, when there is clear notability.

Merging Assembled Brands into Adam Pritzker would mean all sorts of coatracking in order to continue to update the coverage of the company from very high-quality reliable sources, which is continuing at a regular pace. It is a new and extremely well-funded approach to the fashion business, which is why it is getting so much serious press coverage. Indeed, the sub-brands of Assembled Brands are also getting their own RS coverage. I would agree that the sub-brands of Assembled Brands should remain merged into Assembled Brands article, unless one of them gets a really huge amount of press.

But I think the notability of Pritzker even without Assembled Brands is a good reason to keep these articles separate. Also, the Assembled Brands article is certain to continue to expand, given its funding and prominence, so it flunks the merge policy that favors articles unlikely to continue to expand.

Thanks BC1278 (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278

When I comment at AfD, I give advice about what I think should be done with the article. Other people do the same, and the consensus makes the decision. It's not a negotiation between you and me. The place for further discussion is where is the discussion is taking place. I think I mentioned to you somewhere that there is sometimes an unanticipated reaction when a coi editor pushes too hard. I know other people have said that they should simply present their material, and then stay out of the discussion. Myself, I don't think that's always true--often some degree of back and forth can clarify matters after the initial statement. But it's my obligation when someone asks for advice, to use my experience to say what might happen even if I think it ought to happen otherwise DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I understand and agree the substantive discussion about Assembled Brands should take place there. Here I was trying to clarify why your general advice about doing one article for a CEO/business seems less applicable to me and thatI wasn't trying to disregard your general advice.BC1278 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital For The PlanetEdit

Request on 18:40:26, 9 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Nwmetro98Edit

Hello, you reviewed my page submission for "Sean Bloomfield." Thank you very much for the feedback. The reasons you left for not accepting the submission were two: A lack of independent secondary sources that were about the subject at hand (not just mere mentions) and that the author's book is not in many libraries. My key question is to how many independent secondary sources are necessary for a subject to be considered noteworthy. I could not find that in the segment that described notability, and I listed around 15 separate secondary sources and publications that were all solely about the subject's trip or subsequent book (not just passing mentions). One such publication even listed the subject as a person that Minnesotans should be thankful for. My second question is in regards to the book. Should I change the order in the first line to highlight that the subject's main achievement is as an adventurer, and less as an author? I also noticed that there were no requirements for books to be published by a major publishing company or in a certain number of libraries. Are these requirements that I missed? If so, how many libraries are the books required to be placed in?

Thank you for your help! This is my first article creation, though I have begun making contributions to and cleaning up other articles. Hoping to gain a better understanding of the requirements as I move forward.

Nwmetro98 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of AfC review is to accept articles that would probably pass the community review at WP:AFD, and decline those that would not. In practice, articles on authors of self-published works never pass AfD except in rare cases where their renown as an author can be clearly established. The rationale for that is that publishing by a tr;isb;e reputable publisher implies that a an authority has judged the author;'s work important enough to publish; this is , obviously, not the case for self publishing. Whether or not you (or I) agree with this practice, my 11 years of experience at AfD discussions of thousands of articles on authors, has shown me that this is the practical result. It would accomplish nothing if I accepted such an article, for it would almost certainly be deleted at AfD. Similarly, the same is the case for authors whose books are only in a very few libraries--in the absence of exceptional circumstances, they will be deleted at AfD.
As for other possible reasons for notability , the GNG is not considered to be satisfied by reviews in local or specialized publications, because they tendto give indiscriminate coverage of local people. Nor is it satisfied for biographical subjects if the coverage is based upon WP:ONEEVENT.
The inclusion of references to reviews in Amazon and goodreads, and to his own website, further weaken the article: not of them are WP:Reliable sources.
As you work here you will learn, that just as the participants in WP make the policies and guidelines by consensus, they also decide ny consensus how they are to be interpreted. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Heads up - userfied something elseEdit

Back in this MfD about a month or so ago (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pseudo-Richard/Antisemitic canards related to money, banking and finance) I userfied the main article under deletion under your userspace (User:DGG/Jewish stereotypes in banking and finance). It was recently pointed out to me that there was a second bundled article, which I have now userfied to you as well at User:DGG/History of Jews in American banking. If you don't want that one, let me know and I'll undo myself. Cheers! ♠PMC(talk) 20:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please leave them both, so I can work on them. But I'm going to do the Role of Jews on the American film industry first--because this topic is absolutely genuine; Jews did dominate Hollywood during the studio system, whereas they never dominated banking and finance. That antisemites decried the Jewish dominance of the American film industry is undeniable, butt the phenomenon was real. Jews tried in response to anti-semitism to hide this somewhat during the 20s and 30s (and even a little later), but that's part of real history also. It's characteristic of prejudice that the prejudiced group tends to disparage their victims for their real roles and characteristics, as well as the imaginary. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
If there's anyone I trust to do a balanced article on this kind of topic, it's definitely you. Will definitely be interesting to see once it's done. ♠PMC(talk) 00:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Request on 18:08:53, 14 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by MehweiEdit

... in fictionEdit

  • While I'm here, please note that List of giant animals in fiction has been nominated again. In the previous discussion, you said that "I am frankly a little exasperated at people coming here with things they say cannot be sourced, when they haven't found the obvious ones in even the Google. WP: BEFORE should be an absolute requirement...". Matters have not improved as editors not only don't search themselves; they don't acknowledge good sources when they are presented. This looks like a case of WP:IDHT to me... Andrew D. (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I will defend essentially any ... in fiction article that has content. I think that's the sort of thing that WP can do very well, and that this sort of content is in fact the subject of serious study. As for sourcing, you are also s librarian, so you know the general rule that most people will not look beyond those free sources found on the first page of Google. I have never known anyone other than a librarian or a patent attorney actually do a comprehensive search all the way through Google, . Perhaps 10% of people here will use library resources-- even if they can get them free through their library on the internet . As for printed books, the main people who use them here are subject enthusiasts who have their own collections. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Lantern Entertainment Vs. TWCEdit

DGG following up on your comment on the Lantern Entertainment page (copied below), you said you're prepared to make the split, do you have any idea as to when that might be complete? The page still shares incorrect information about both companies


"I think we do need two articles. The Weinstein Company is by far the better known at present, and the principal article should be at that name, and will give the information about the sale of the assets. Latern is notable enough by itself for a separate page, where the link can be briefly stated. I'm prepared to do the split. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekparker63 (talkcontribs)

Checking in again here. Is there anything that can help move this along? The page is still giving out the wrong information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekparker63 (talkcontribs) 15:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)



do you have specifics contradicting any of the sources? Some of the sources, for example, Strabo, Ptolemy, Livy, Arrian, Thucydides, etc. are used by all modern scholars. The Smith dictionaries are extensively used and followed by others (more modern) such as the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World and An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. I'd like to know of conflicting information. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The Sperm Bank of CaliforniaEdit

Hello, you listed this article for deletion because you write it does not demonstrate notability. In depth coverage in two reliable independent sources, what else do you need? I would like you to be more specific in complaints like this because they are likely to disappoint other users. Crotopaxi (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I expanded my comment; as our rules provide, even tho you are the original author, you are permitted to remove the proposed deletion tag; if you do, I suggest you add additional references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, or I will probably take it to afd for a community decision.. If you do not have additional sources at hand, it can be moved to Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast response. But come on, the Newsweek source has two whole paragraphs about the bank, AlterNet four short ones. I had no problem to find numerous other ones, and already added one. If you are not interested in the topic, no problem, but why not just stay away from it? I find it quite worrisome that there are numerous wikipedians who complain about the work of others without substantive evidence that they are willing to support each others voluntary contributions. This won't help the project to grow or improve, it shies away those who get easily intimidated. No wonder there are far less female than male wikipedians. Crotopaxi (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Why do you conclude I am not interested in the topic? But there are some topics that are likely to be the targets of promotional editing, and work on advocacy and social service organizations, especially those that might take controversial roles, are among them., especially when good sources for notability appear to be lacking. What I care about is NPOV, and I therefore watch both inadvertent as well as deliberate promotionalism & lack of notability on all topics, or at least all topics I can understand. . If you think this is an inappropriatre activity, you can discuss this, either with me or elsewhere, The first step is to add the references you indicate, and then I'll look again. I remind you that this was a proposed deletion only, the least drastic and most reversible of all ways of doing it, and that I have always regarded the ideal response to a deletion nomination to be an improved article. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Gender and ResearchEdit

David, usually we take inclusion in Scopus as a sign of notability. However, in this case Scopus says that the journal was indexed "from 2016 to 2017" (which I generously interpreted as "indexed in 2016 and 2017", although it could very well mean that it was included from Jan 1 2016 to Jan 1 2017). If the journal would currently be indexed, this would read "from 2016 to present". So it was only 1 or 2 years and Scopus and has since been delisted. It was PRODed earlier today (not by me) and I assume that you'll want to dePROD because it is published by the Czech Academy of Sciences. Regardless of that, what do you think about Scopus? If this were some obscure (but honest) publisher, would you take the listing in those 2 years as a sign of notability or not? (We don't have this issue with ISI, because their Master Journal List only lists journals that are currently indexed, not journals that at some point in the past have been indexed.) Thanks! Best, --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

When Scopus was first published, I reviewed it at some length in the professional literature ("Comparative Reviews of Scopus and Web of Science." with Louise Deis:

The Charleston Advisor (Nov 2005) 7 (2) 5-20; my current link for this is broke--I will locate another) . and supplemented my review approximately biannually as it improved. The deliberate intent of Scopus was to cover the scholarly literature more broadly than ISI, including considerably more material on the social sciences, and somewhat more third world material. ISI responded to it by broadening its own coverage, Scopus did similarly, and the 2 have been continuing this ever since. There is a difference--ISI stratified its product, Scopus has kept a single database.

With respect to its coverage for this journal, Scopus has covered through the latest published issue, 2017 no.2. (there are 2 issues/year). It says it has listed 16 items, which from the Journal's table of contents is the total of all substantive articles published in those two issues, so it has covered the entire year. Looking at the journal's archive, until 2016, this journal published almost entirely material by Czech authors; mostly dealing with Czech-related subjects, and almost entirely written in Czech, often without even an English abstract . Considering the Scopus coverage criteria [25], it would not possibly have met them in those years. The journal is now apparently trying for a broader audience. According to the Scopus title list [26] , coverage is ongoing. I do not know why the Scopus previews link said otherwise. Their documentation is not known for consistency. It would be premature to say discontinued until there are 2018 published issues Scopus does not cover , or it appears on the (very interesting ) Scopus discontinued list : [27] Or, of course, if there are no 2018 issues after another year or so. Since they are publishing each issue as a special topic issue, it's hard to predict publication dates.
In general, as you know, I take a much broader view of journal notability than you. This one may be borderline. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks David, for that detailed analysis. I missed that there was simply no 2018 issue yet to index. Given that it is indexed by Scopus, I'm going to dePROD it. As for my more restrictive stand on journal notability: I try to maintain clear objective criteria, it is often difficult enough to get people to accept to keep journals that clearly meet NJournals... --Randykitty (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wednesday Salon IntroductionEdit

I'd very much like to meet you tonight. Vyeh (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Vyeh, Ditto. I will probably be there at the NYC meetup by about 6:40. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Kaplan Test Prep draft pageEdit

Hello, I recently submitted a new article draft for Kaplan Test Prep, which was declined with the note: “Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Kaplan Inc. instead.”

I’d like to ask you to review this again based on the information provided below.

As you can see in the Graham Holdings Company template (, there are actually 9 existing Wikipedia articles under the Kaplan, Inc. section, all of which are about business units of Kaplan, Inc. A new Kaplan Test Prep article would be the 10th in this series, as Kaplan, Inc. is the parent company of Kaplan Test Prep.

(FYI, Graham Holdings Company is the parent company of Kaplan, Inc.)

This follows the widespread and generally accepted practice of separate Wikipedia articles posted for significant business units of large companies. Just a few examples include:

To make it clear for readers that Kaplan Test Prep and its parent company Kaplan, Inc. are not the same, I’ve added several sentences to the Kaplan Test Prep draft:

  • Kaplan Test Prep is a unit of global education company Kaplan, Inc., which also includes Kaplan Higher Education and Kaplan International.
  • In 1985, The Washington Post Company (now Graham Holdings Company) bought the company from Stanley Kaplan. In 1994, Jonathan Grayer was appointed CEO and led the expansion of Kaplan into other educational areas beyond test preparation, such as higher education and English language programs, forming the educational services corporation of Kaplan, Inc. in 2000.
  • Kaplan Test Prep today operates as the test prep arm of Kaplan Inc.

It would be great to get any feedback about how to improve the article further. Thank you! MT wKaplan (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

As I see you are working on several Kaplan articles, I'll try to give a comprehensive answer. For clarity anfd general visibility, I am going to place my response on the talk page of the main Kaplan Inc. article. (There's a sense in which the Graham Holdings articles might be seen as the main article, but the corporation is too diversified for that to be meaningful.)
But there is a preliminary matter,which I can best mention here. it is important to distinguish whether you are directly an employee of the company, or an independent contractor or employee of a PR firm working for the company; if it's the latter there are additioanl disclosures to be made--see WP:PAID. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Global Wireless SolutionsEdit

Hi DGG, I am a paid contributor for Global Wireless Solutions and noticed your edits on the page. I am curious why you categorized the "examples of network benchmark tests" as spam, despite none of them including links to the Global Wireless Solutions webpage? The footnotes were all external news articles and Global Wireless Solutions did not have any influence on them. Please let me know what the problem is for my future understanding. Thank you! Scwiki3 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

your including them could be see as link spam--a way to get links in WP from famous entities that are only incidental to the subject of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! I have included your edits in my proposed edits on the Global Wireless Solutions talk page, as well as replaced the "press release" languge with more informative, concise content. I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my proposed edits and approve them if they are satisfactory. If you approve them, then the press release tag at the top of the Global Wireless Solutions page should be resolved. Furthermore, now that I have been disclosed as a paid contributor to the Global Wireless Solutions page, the COI/"close connection" tag at the top of the page has been resolved and so it would be great if you could manually remove it as well. Thanks! Scwiki3 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Good work. Your knowledge of the products helped make for a more compact presentation, and I replaced the corresponding text with your new version (I cleaned up the wording: see the talk p for details. I rarely copyedit paid work to this degree, but the extent of your changes indicates you can learn our style, and it is easier to teach these things by example. . Now rewrite the remainder DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I have added edits of the remainder, focusing on removing repetitive information from the History section and making it clear and concise for the readers. If you approve these edits, I think it would be best for you to copy and paste all of my proposed edits on to the page as I noticed there were a few footnote problems when only part of the text was copy&pasted. Also, if these edits are sufficient then hopefully you will be able to resolve the tags at the top of the Global Wireless Solutions page. Thank you! Scwiki3 (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

nursing biosEdit

Thanks for the encouragement, DGG. I'm slowly working on a number of BLPs in nursing as well as science diplomacy and related fields. I appreciate your edits; thanks! Vothlee (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Vothlee

Undisclosed Paid editingEdit

Here is the link of

Needs to hire 10 Freelancers Review and Accept submission of Recording Artist Famoe (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How does it happen that you saw that upwork page; it's apparenty restricted to those with an account. Please email me from my user talk page; or email arb com at In either case your identity will be considered confidential, but I do not like to proceed upon anonymous accusations where I cannot see the evidence. DGG ( talk ) 14:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018Edit

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.



Fram, it seems we are two of the very few people who use NPP to check on autoconfirmed editors. I use the old list interface to scan quickly for anomalies, but I only get to it every week or so for a little while. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Same here, I only see a fraction of the new pages, but I look at them without prejudice wrt autoconfirmed, reviewed, ... Of course, there are editor+topic combinations I don't bother reviewing (e.g. Lugnuts creating a List-A cricketer article, these can be reasonably be assumed to be factual and notable (according to our very loose criteria)), but otherwise I have seen too many "accepted" editors creating problematic articles (copyvio, hoaxes, ...). And with ACTrial permanently implemented, we have a bit more time to look at these instead of the endless crapfest we had before! Fram (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Paul H. IrvingEdit

Hi DGG, I have added new sources to the talk page of this draft in order to better establish notability for Paul H. Irving. I have noted my NNPOV but hope you will consider the significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If this is still not sufficient, please provide further guidance. Thank you in advance. OrliBelman (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Orli Belman

I've commented on the draft. More generally, it would appear that a number of other articles on faculty at the USC Dept of Gerontology have been written by publicists. I am going to assume that these were people in the position before you, but if they are still active, please alert them to the need to declare.
Even more generally, looking at the category for USC faculty, it appears that an unusual number of them have similarly been written by PR staff in a consistent manner. Other universities do this also, but the proportion of such articles from USC is unusually high. If you should happen to know your colleagues who are doing this, please make them aware of our requirements. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE and other AfD adviceEdit

Please remember to do WP:BEFORE background research before nominating articles for deletion. I've seen many of your AfD noms fail–they could've easily been avoided had more research been done. I've made similar mistakes in the past and it's easy to correct them. I've rarely seen you mention in your nominations that you did one, while there are sometimes a dozen articles extra on the subject that may make it pass WP:GNG or other notability guidelines.

This link shows that you nominate many articles for deletion and it's good that many are successful, but bad that so many aren't.

This is just a friendly message with advice... no worries here. I know that you are an experienced editor here and have respect from the community due to your activity here and I appreciate it a ton, but there are basic errors I've seen you make and I'm just pointing them out.

Always happy to help.
Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I know not everyone understands what my purposes are in deletion discussions. Although some questions involved in determining notability or promotionalism are cut-and-dried, other aspects remain uncertain. And even for our accepted rules, the boundaries between the acceptable and the not acceptable are almost always fuzzy. I have for many years chosen to involve myself with the undecided and the fuzzy. This necessarily implies my nominations do not always suceed--if they always did, I would not have successfully identified the disputable cases.
Additionally, consensus can change, and I have definite ideas on which directions I would like it to change. My method of working is to carefully try to see and affect the views people have here. I try to do this cautiously, and not be over-persistent on any one point; but I continue to advocate for them from time to time as occasion offers; and I do not concentrate too hard on any one issue, because I have several of them in mind. The only way to see if an argument is more likely to convince people than in the past, is by trying.
Further, I have some basic principles that others may not share. For example, I consider avoiding promotionalism far more important than deciding borderline notability. I like simple ways of deciding that do not rely on the variable interpretation of nebulous terms. And, just as long as we maintain verifiability, I consider sourcing much less important than importance as judged within the subject. As you must be aware, the people taking interest in any one discussion vary. If a discussion should happen to attract people who dislike the way I look at things, the result will not go my way. I consider this the necessary consequence of deciding questions the way WP does, by the consensus of those who are for the moment interested.
I never look at my the statistics of afds I nominate or participate in. Anyone can get a perfect record by only doing the obvious, as it is necessary when a candidate at RfA. I do not even watchlist the discussions. I do keep track of ones that I want to return to--either in a few months, when there may be a more representative set of participants, or in a year, as consensus begins to change, or in 5 years, when it has done so, or in 10, when we mature into a better realization of our responsibilities.
I do not argue to win individual decisions; I argue to change opinions more generally. ( This means I will often lose, but that does not bother me, as long as we are making progress in what I consider the right direction, or as a last resort, just keep things from getting even more wrong-headed) Any topic it would really bother me emotionally to lose, I do not engage with on Wikipedia. And I make mistakes. When I do, I say so. Very few other people do that, and I have never been able to understand it.
In particular, since you mention it, I sometimes do use guesswork about whether there will or will not be sources. I think I'm pretty good at it, but I am not perfect. (very few people are, see the AfD for John J. Kerrigan. or Richard Ziser . ) I do not think this particularly wrong, because I do not give opinions about what I want kept or deleted primarily on the basis of sourcing, though I try to also argue in the conventional way for those who insist on it. No one has the right to expect that I will argue as they would like me to. All that anyone has the right to expect of me, is that I go by the established consensus in making administrative decisions.
And, to get down to issues, our most recent disagreement is Christopher Bergland. Frankly, I consider article unencyclopedic, regardless of details of sourcing, unless it is actually of really general interest. It's the sort of coverage we should minimize. The policy here is NOT INDISCRIMINATE., which is the true foundation of all inclusion guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
as usual, a well reasoned and cogent response from DGG. Wikikit stalker - meowr! Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting discussion. We sometimes vote at the same AfD, and I take note of what you say. I find it interesting you don't base your votes primarily on sourcing, which is my primary basis of voting, except that I will vote for a WP:TNT on articles so poorly written (or WP:PROMO) that I don't want the general public to see them in that state.
I think I might share your view, which I believe is that we have too many articles about unnotable athletes. I find it incredible that we have the WP:NOLYMPICS rule that anyone who ever participated in any Olympics is automatically notable. That seems a glaring and unreasonable exception to our rules, and I cannot understand how on earth we have such a rule. Some of these athletes have zero secondary sources, but we still have an article? I am curious if you have any thoughts on that issue and how that rule came into being. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
1) I think the rule came into being to avoid the tens of thousands of debates that would have occurred otherwise. Including non-notable people does very little harm, provided that what we say can be verified and that there is nothing that might violate BLP. Engaging in extensive afd debates when it doesn't matter does do harm, for it impairs our ability to focus on the important issues. I wish we had many more fixed rules for what we would ordinarily cover/not cover. I would support them even if I did not altogether agree with them, because it simplifies our procedures. (In fact, I would usually support them even if I totally disagreed. Consensus only works if we put up with each other. )
2) There are a number of areas where I think we have too many articles. I think that everyone has this opinion, except that the areas they think over-covered differ. This is a communal enterprise, and I think we can only proceed without conflict by letting other people have their harmless over-coverage in their areas of interest, provided it does not interfere with what we individually consider proper coverage in our own areas of interest. For example, I will gladly accept the athlete in exchange for accepting an article on each species of organisms. Everyone's examples will differ here. But the only way to get an encyclopedia the way I would want it would be to make it myself. As this is impossible, compromise is necessary. Consensus only works if we put up with each other. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I can't agree with you that declaring certain topics or people notable simply to reduce time spent at AfD is a good idea, but I do respect the idea that having simple reasonable metrics can make complex decisions simpler. (For example, I would like a database that makes it easy to lookup particular sources and our overall assessment of their reliability, including past discussions.) If we have more articles, then that means more maintenance of those articles for accuracy. When I hit random article, it far too frequently goes to some obscure athlete, often someone in the Olympics with virtually zero WP:SECONDARY. This seems a bit unfair to other topics and people, like say movie stars and film directors who have to reach a far higher bar with WP:NARTIST. My feeling is that WP:NOLYMPICS means we are effectively promoting the Olympics by disproportionately waiving notability rules for Olympians while doing the opposite for other fields. It's a bit strange given the demographics of our editors.
Being an inclusionist, I tend not to worry about "over-coverage", as long as there is WP:RS that underpins the text. But given that we have long-standing rules of the minimum requirement for an article, I do believe we should apply them uniformly. If the standard is *multiple* independent secondary sources, I am frustrated that Olympians get a free pass, but others do not. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
If we're talking about athletes, I do not see how the coverage of Olympics in WP has a significant promotional effect in comparison to their already achieved status, nor does it affect the career of individual athletes--they either win, or they don't. I'm much more concerned in this connection with some other fields of endeavor. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the individual athletes, I'm talking about our articles promoting the Olympics, which has become a huge industry. By having articles on numerous people simply because they participated in this event, it sends the message that the event is *extremely* important. The Olympics is a billion dollar business. See their marketing materials here. See also [28][29][30][31]. (I take note that our article Olympic Games seems to give fairly limited coverage of profits, revenues, and advertising mentioned in those articles I easily pulled up in this Google search.) --David Tornheim (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Organization Article QuestionEdit

Hi, DGG – I’m reaching out about the Direct Relief Wikipedia page. As an employee at Direct Relief with a clear conflict of interest, I’m hesitant to make any edits, nor would I know where to start. That said, I share your objective to have an unbiased, non-promotional and informative article about the organization. I was hoping that you might recommend how one might go about trying to resolve the issue you flagged – ensuring adherence to community guidelines that discourage employees from writing or editing articles on behalf of their employers (a good policy).

Any advice or help you’re able to offer is greatly appreciated. Thank you,

Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony mit (talkcontribs) 01:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The first step is to realize that it is very difficult to write in a NPOV manner about your own self or your organization. The official way to do it is by making suggestions, which you should make on the article talk page. . Add a line reading {{Requestedit}} . Unfortunately will usually take a while for a response--but if you also notify me here I will take a look. However, some of the elimination of excess can be done directly--it can be cleaer that way, just put a note explaining it on the article talk page.
The problem is advocacy. The simplest rule to follow is that it looks like it would make an effective web page on your site, it will not do here. Your web page says what you would like people to know about your organization--an encyclopedia article says what ordinary people would want to do. This includes the general outlines of your work, but not why the problems it tries to deal with are important. It shouldn't include a list of minor projects, and for those projects that are worth mentioning, it shouldn't describe why the work is important, just say what was done. ( for an example, section 4.1 should not include the second sentence. ) It shouldn't include minor awards; for the awards worth mentioning, it shouldn't cite the vague terms customary in the award announcement. It has to give the source of each reference without people having to look it up. It shouldn't cite press releases, it shouldn't include material such as material derived only from the organization, such as the Guidestar statement that ""this report represents Direct Relief's responses". It should eliminate adjectives of praise or importance.
In practice, it is easier to show what I mean by doing it, so I will give a first pass tonight. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, DGG - That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the quick reply and thoughtful explanation. Also, thanks for being up for making a first pass. I'll be sure to take notes and learn what I can based on your edits. Tony mit (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, DGG - I saw your edits and tried to pick up where you left off. I didn't add any info but removed a couple sentences that I thought could be promotional. Also, I removed some information that didn't seem relevant, and edited punctuation in a few places. If you have any feedback or think any of the edits I made should be undone, please let me know, and thanks again.

Tony Tony mit (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

All Things BroadwayEdit

Hi. I have to admit I'm bristling a little at your post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Things Broadway at having a community member of your stature say my nomination should not be considered when deciding consensus because of admittedly substantial efforts to improve that have improved the article. I have read every last word posted on that page. As I explained after the first 2,000 words, I don't tend to reply to discussions where I've nominated because I've found when nominators engage in prolonged discussion with article creators that neither person in the discussion comes out looking good. However, I do monitor the discussions carefully. Is there a policy/guideline/well-respected essay that says after a rewrite that a nominator should confirm their nomination? I saw no reason to do so here because I considered the theater production element in my nomination statement, but, unlike what I'm doing here, I try to be concise. If there is such a piece of writing I'm sorry for bristling on your talk page. If there's not, I would ask to be asked to confirm next time rather than having my nomination (and time I've spent thinking about the article and researching it and following huge amounts of text at AfD) be imputed to not matter - I'd have been happy to reply. In that spirit would you consider replying to the question L235 posed to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Value Partners? I feel that the topic is likely notable but my research to date hasn't found other coverage that pushes it over the line for me. But maybe I'm underestimating/not properly considering one of the existing sources. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

as I see it, I was offering you the chance to say that you had taken it into account. Even more important, if I notify one person who has been involved in a discussion, I try to notify all of them. And , as I said, I have not myself decided whether or not I consider the topic notable even as rewritten.
as for the SWP article, I'll look at it again . I always like to be reminded or notified , as I cannot watch every discussion I engage it. I think everyone knows by now that I sometimes change my mind. Please always do notify me if there's something I might possibly want to check again. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: and @DGG: Thank you, both. I'll be more concise in the future. I'm planning an article about the t. Will these sources suffice for notability: [32] [33] [34] [35] I plan to write ATA as a theater company rather than as a venue or a BLP of James Jennings, founder of ATA. What are your thoughts? Thank you.Vyeh (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
DGG Wasn't planning on responding again to you but since I got pinged back here anyway, let me say (more succinctly) I would argue I didn't need to be offered that chance at risk of having my voice discounted. I would have been happy if asked rather than demanded (as I saw it) or offered (as you see it) to comment.
Vyeh Thanks for taking some lessons from that AfD. I think you'd have stood a better chance of persuading, and wouldn't have attracted so much attention, if you'd been more concise. As for ATA, Backstage might be helpful for notability but it's borderline for me (I question its independence given the heavy quoting and the plug for tickets at the end). I'm not familiar enough with Backstage's editorial process to say more about its RS status. The others don't strike me as all that great. But given what was said in those sources I think the organization likely is notable and sources are out there that would help establish it as such. One such source might be this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

High standardsEdit

I strongly support articles for all notable academics. In particular, I have from my first years of WP strongly supported articles for academics in fields that have traditionally been ones where the majority of the people were women. 10 years ago there was explicitly worded opposition to covering people in such fields--I think the records of earlier afds will show I took a leading role in trying to get them included--we still have a long way to go in some of these fields-- there are a great many women who meet the standards for WP:PROF that need articles written, and I support the organized efforts to write them.
But' the standards for the 21st century and the late 20th century academics are the same for all genders and ethnic groups and nationalities. I recognize there is still a considerable degree of gender and other discrimination in the academic world, but an encyclopedia has to go by accomplishments, not by what there might be if the world were better. (In earlier centuries, when opportunities for women were extremely limited, I certainly support taking account of this in the expectations for accomplishment). Saying we should accept anything less than the same standard is like saying good enough, for a woman, the traditional patriarchal condescending way of thinking. I sometimes see that others still think that way; it is one of the insidious effect of prejudice that those discriminated against and their supporters have also had their own thinking influenced; that's part of the mechanism by which prejudice continues. '

. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice words. .... Your notions and reaction are completely contrary to your flowery prose. Sorry you do not convince. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
as I said a long time ago, I am not so unrealistic as to argue to convince my opponents. I argue to convince those who might see the discussion. There are only two options, one is that the same standards apply, and the other is the perpetuation of prejudice. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, actually I want to be convinced. FYI I am involved in linking papers to authors. I do add genders to the info so that it makes clear the extend the gender gap is involved in co-authors. GerardM (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking at your excellent recent work, I am not sure what we might be quarreling about. The main difference is that for scientists I focus more of demonstrable scientific accomplishment as measured by publication, and you focus a little more on press coverage.of human interest aspects. Myself, I do still distrust press coverage of " human interest"; I think it has the same lack of relevance to notability for scientists as it does it other fields--and if the scientist is notable by WP:PROF, trying to add human interest tends to detract from it. This is I consider to be based upon my feeling thta human interest inevitably always leads to promotionalism ; but it is also possible to see it as representing a somewhat cold-blooded or distant attitude to people, or a fear of sentimentality. .
But if you mean that we still disagree on the relative weight to give underrepresented groups, there need be no practical dispute, if those wishing to cover the underrepresented groups do as I have always recommended, start with the most notable by unambiguous and accepted criteria. There are thousands of such articles to write; after we've done them, it will be time to discuss the middle range,for the middle range, the borderline notable, will always be borderline no matter where we draw the border. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The biggest difference between you and me is that you insist on being the arbiter who decides who deserves to be seen as a notable scientist. I don't. When I start with a scientist who "is in the news / on Twitter", I seek out their authority control data and only when they have an ORCID identifier they get the full treatment. Meaning that I import their papers, their co-authors and link it all. These people may come to me as recipients of awards as well. What I find is people who have been deleted because ... no clue really when I note people like with this gentleman who was deleted never mind the prestigious awards that were bestowed on him previously. Oh yes, those awards were Finnish..
When you insist on doing the most prestigious scientist first, you expect that there is a list or something that makes it easy for you to allow them to exist. Such a list does not exist and if anything it is not static. A women gets the Nobel Prize, her algorith gives us a peek at a black hole upsetting any scheme we might come up with. I reject your notions where the news does not play a role in who gets attention. Your notions fail because we are not in the business of writing a magnus opum on scientists, we are writing an encyclopedia. We write it for a public who expect to find those scientists who are notably present in the news. When you are right and a bit of cold water is to be dropped on the relevance of a scientist, it must be in the article if we are to do any good. In what I do, I serve a public. I understand the limitations of what I can achieve and exposing thousand of scientists many with hundreds even thousands of papers is not the same as me proposing articles like for Professor Lawn who is one of the foremost experts on neonatology and makes a big impact on child mortality. Yes, she has an article and I am grateful.
When I read your arguments, they are about you. What motivates you. Consequently your arguments do not translate in a way that allows others to consistently emulate your actions. Your arguments are not even universally accepted, they are rejected by many. So my question to you is how can your POV be made objective and workable. As it is, it makes you and your opinions contentious. Given the good work that you do, that is not what we want. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
You are right, my arguments are explaining the way I look at things. That's because I view our decisions of notability as primarily subjective--decisions based on individual values and understandings of what WP should be like. Understanding the different ways people look at a problem is in such cases the way to go forward. Myself, I do have a=definite understanding of what is meant yby academic notability in the RW, ANdI think WP should follow it. It has everything to do with accomplishments , and nothing to do with outside sources. (I have similar views in other fields, but I am not there an expert in just what the field considers notability to the extent I am in the area where I have spent all of my career, and I therefore do not argue them in quite as positive a manner.)
I altogether understand your view that we need to provide information about those things that are rightly or otherwise in the news, and that people will come to WP to find information on. That's t he basis of my continuing effort to cover pseudoscience) I think your statement on that above is one of the clearest such statements, and I think what you say is a perfectly valid consideration.,Buy when we cover people this way, we need to cover them accurately. Covering them accurately means stating the limited nature of their actual scientific work, and those article I have seen rarely do that. They instead pretend that the oerson is notable as a scientist, and attempt to convince the reader of that .That was in fact the basis for my ill-starred attempt to write a rational article on Phelps. She's never been notable as a scientist, but rather as a figure that ORNL wants to publicize to pretend they are giving opportunities to minorities.
We have to cover the world as it is, but we aklso have to maintain objective standards, There are some areas where this is impossible, such as some areas of entertainment, and I simply don't work there.
I'm continuing this discussion not exactly to convince each other, but in the hope we can better understand each other's way of looking at things, and to some extent, take them into account. In other words, I am fully convinced my way of looking at these problems is basically correct, but I know it does not encompass all reasonable considerations: It's basically correct, not completely correct,. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Again I have some points to make. First, some scientists are not necessarily known for their science but for other aspects than just their published record. Even with scientists known for their published work, we do not make it easy on our public. We do show the ORCiD in the Source Control template but we do not show their "Scholia", it is more informative. A precedent for something similar is the inclusion of "Worldcat". As you mention "pseudoscience", you will agree that this is beside the point, the subject is diversity in Wikipedia for scientists.
The biggest beef I have with your POV is "authority". You tell me, the world that you know best and are to be trusted in this. As long as this trust is unchallenged no problem. However, your authority is challenged and what I find is that you indicate that it is subjective, you use words like "pseudo science" in this conversation and even though I know you mean it as a sidestep it comes across as a challenge to the legitimacy of the people who gain attention thanks to the "women in red" et al efforts.
The problem is that your foothold on authority is challenged for instance in this Finnish gentleman with existing awards, who has an award conferred on him by a American diabetes organisation. Diabetes is very much in the news thanks to the outrageous prizes charged by US companies for insulin. We need to cover this ground extensively. This is just another article deleted for the wrong reasons. What I find is many white US males with really poor articles who are not challenged and it becomes then all too easy to dismiss your POV as biased. That is my problem. What I ask of you is to make your criteria more objective and that these criteria are evenly applied. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Question on Notability / AfD -- secondary sources based on a press releaseEdit

I'd like your opinion on whether we consider a topic or person notable if they have multiple independent WP:SECONDARY WP:RS on them, but it is easy to see that the secondary sources (with by-lines of journalists working for the periodicals) were based mostly or almost entirely on the same press release. I can see an argument for and against such a person/topic being notable. I'm not familiar with any guidelines about this. What is your opinion? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If secondary sources are based on a press release they do not cou nt for notability . They never did, and this has been clairfied by NCORP. If two or more secondary sources have essentially the same cotnent, they either arecopying each other, or a copying the same PR source, or at least are based on it, and even if the original cannot be identified, it's proof of unreliability. I and others have made this argument of many hundreds of afds , and it's never been refuted.
the real problem is that in some fields, unless the subject is truly famous, all available sources are to some extent based on press releases. We haven't fully realized this yet, except in the most obvious examples, like films in some countries. The job of a good press agent consists of getting apparently reliable sources to carry their material. I'm no sure that this can be dealt with by the GNG--either we have to greatly truncate our coverage in many important fields, or we have to base notability on some other criterion. (It has sometimes been said that the fact that secondary sources choose to reprint one particular organization's press releases shows that that organization is notable -- but most industry sources try to accommodate as many firms in the industry as possible, and beyond there it's based mainly on contacts, the most important part of the background necessary to be a good press agent. What it shows is the importance of the particular press agent, and PR people use these placements as their credentials, just as people trying to write paid editing for WP are expected to give references to their other articles ). DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for directing me to WP:NCORP and for the full explanation. Regarding this rule in WP:NCORP:
Examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability:
  • press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials
  • any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism),...
You are saying that this also applies to people or topics, in addition to orgs? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
NCORP is not a new guideline--everything there there is basically the GNG sourcing requirements, specialized for companies. The requirement that sources for notability be sources providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements is standard. Companies are such an issue these days that it was necessary to reiterate the rule , with examples. People are a slightly different problem, because of the SNGs. Except for WP:PROF, which is an alternative to the GNG, we have never consistently decided the relationship between them and the SNG. My own position in most cases is that they too should in general be seen as replacements, but that has never really had consensus. I have suggested that often it be handled by interpreting "presumed" in its legal meaning, if it meets that requirements in the SNG, it is notable unless it can be clearly shown otherwise, and it can not be clearly shown otherwise without a comprehensive search in all reasonably likely sources, which is beyond the resources of most people here--and even with the necessary library resources smd languages and skill, it is normally beyond the time available.
But everything I say above is just how I think the guidelines we use can best be interpreted to give what we consider a reasonable result. We most of the time actually use them to justify our views about what an encyclopedia like WP ought to cover, although many people claim not to not realize it. The effective guidelines are made by our decisions. That's why I usually say something like, "it has been our consistent practice that ...." If I argue to change a guideline, it is on the basis that our decisions have changed and the guideline needs to keep up with it. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


DGG You haven't responded to my message: "I'm planning an article about the American Theatre of Actors. Will these sources suffice for notability: [36] [37] [38] [39] I plan to write ATA as a theater company rather than as a venue or a BLP of James Jennings, founder of ATA. What are your thoughts? Thank you."

Barkeep49 found "New York theater named after stage and TV actor John Cullum". I found [40]. About a third of the way, the review states:

In its former home Off Broadway, the American Theater of Actors, a warehouse-like room on the second floor of a midtown building with 135 seats on risers, I found Urinetown audacious and exhilarating, riotously and intelligently arch. And my intention was to assess how well the show has accommodated its step up in physical dimensions (at 635 seats, the Henry Miller is far bigger, though far from Broadway big) and also to assess the visibility that its notoriety and success have engendered.

Are the four source in my original message, the Daily Herald and the New York Times enough to establish notability for ATA? Thank you. Vyeh (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks for reminding me. Tomorrow or Friday. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)



Hi there,

I am trying to disclose my Agency's involvement with certain clients. I noticed that you nominated the pages for deletion here:

How do I go about moving the userspace pages over to mine? I believe that I added the appropriate disclosures to the page, but please correct me if I am wrong. I do see, in the current state that they are in will mean they need some edits (in my userspace) before they will be considered.

Thank you for any guidance! Comeongerry (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(placed in incorrect location-- not seen until just now . DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks from NPPEdit


The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

Thanks for your recent work reviewing new articles. Foreign biography articles are often particularly difficult (at least for me), and I saw quite a few of these among your reviews. Thanks and keep up the good work. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Page Deletion Follow-UpEdit

Hi, I noticed your deletion of the Patrick Gunning page due to G12 ("Unambiguous copyright infringement: extensive copyvio from ref 1 and other references"). Do you reckon you can restore the page as a draft so I can address your concerns? (I paraphrased everything as briefly as possible. I absolutely did not copy/paste anything, and so I'd like to see where I went wrong.)

If not, that's fine. I'm not looking to start an edit war. Soulsinsync (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll explain things further on your talk page later today. I meant to do it before now, but real life got in the way. Sorry. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
sorry, maybe tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

needs check

Page Deletion of....Edit

1. You are the obvious sockpuppet of another editor, who was indefinitely blocked for adding advertising material with a promotional username--using an open proxy in both instances. , It has returned without explaining the connection, and have continued to add material which was essentially advertising; this account too has been blocked.
2.The material was added to mainspace despite the conflict of interest, with edits designed to evade our rules requiring use of draft space for new articles by new editors.
3.The material consisted of long sections of advocacy explaining the underlying problems, a long overpersonal account of how the two inventors devised the scheme and their own individual merits, & direct advertising claims about the security and other benefits. This is appropriate for the firm's web page, not an encyclopedia
4.It was sourced almost entirely to the firms own website, PR sites, mere listings, mere announcements of funding, and similar. (Tho some are in Chinese, the online translations make it obvious that everything is copied from their own press releases.)
You are, however, quite correct in your statement that we proceed to remove material of this nature as rapidly as we possibly can.

DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

An amazingly detailed explanation for a spammer. They were on my talkpage too because I CSD tagged the page. Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
much of it is very similar to what I've said hundreds of times, so it takes just a few minutes -- and it's here for other people to see it.
I find that an explanation of how I know they're a spammer tends to lower the chance that they'll come back, or try to protest further. .
And I know from comments made to me here and elsewhere that an explanation that makes it clear that I've actually read the article and checked the references is much more effective for both spammers and good faith but inexperienced editors than our usual notices. I only sometimes do this because there are just too many, but we really always ought to. We need to at least give the impression that this site is run by humans. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


See Talk:Lankenau_Institute_for_Medical_Research/workspace, and notes at article talk page here and at the user's talk page here. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

needs checking DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018Edit

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

(why is this considered an advertisement?)Edit

There are the following problems:

  1. The article is addressed to "you"
  2. Overpersonal account of the founding of the company
  3. Referring to people by the first names alone
  4. Repeated use of straight advertising language, eg "... makes international payroll payments faster, cheaper and easier" "in under 24 hours" "helps employees, freelancers and contractors receive their wages all over the world, "
  5. Inclusion of practical details about how to use the service--this belongs on the firm's own web page only.
  6. Inclusion of routine features as if they were something special.

In addition, there are major problems with the referencing:

  1. Using references that merely mention the company as if they had substantial material. Every reference from something that could be seen as a major reliable source is of this nature,
  2. Using references that are straight PR sites, or based on PR, or are mere announcements.

The only likely way of getting an article on Wikipedia is that the company might become so notable that there will be truly substantial, independent and non-promotional sources, and for someone unconnected with the company to want to write about it. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for your edit! I’d like to inform you that that article isn’t a press based! I’ve gathered all information from google, linked in, and many sources! I founded this source from google and I made it reference for verification so that people easily can understand! He’s an artist so he gave lots of speech in front of press and etc and it’s general! Can you please remove that template, it’d be kind enough! Thanks Shaheba Sultana (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please revert my article because that matches with WP:BLP and all articles had enough citations to verify! WP:RFAA Thank you Shaheba Sultana (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

checking' DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for looking into the draft of CoinSwitch. I see that it has been deleted for "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia so I may not have known to avoid certain tones or points of view in order to avoid this, but I did make efforts, to the best of my abilities, to ensure a neutral point of view, while adding numerous citations, from reputed publications, wherever possible. I believe the topic is worthy of a Wikipedia article because of the following reasons:

from my Comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CoinSwitch 27 Oct 1018
One way of looking at promotionalism is that if the article is suitable for a company web page, it is promotional , not encyclopedic; another is that a promotional article gives the information the company would want to give, rather than the information a reader might want to know; yet another, is providing information that would interest none but present or potential participants or clients. associates. Either way, it's promotional. You may not have intended it as such: the nature of some subjects is that it is difficult to write an article at all without it also having large elements of promotionalism; the world is so full of promotional writing that people naturally write in that style; Wikipedia in particular, has so much promotional content from the earlier years when standards were lower that people assume that's what is wanted here. It will take us a long time tor remove it all, but the least we can do is not add to it.
. Unfortunately, those references that are of high quality seem to talk about various aspects of the industry, not this company specifically. I think that it it is very difficult within our rules to write articles on companies in this industry; there is relatively little distinguishing them which could not equally be seen as promotionalism . The only likely possibilities for articles would be industry leaders in either size, prominence, or historical role--or those which have been the focus of major scandal or regulatory action. Probably at least half of our existing articles in this field were accepted when we had not yet realized the difficulties, and need to be re-examined. As I said earlier, this problem is to some extent common to many industries, especially those dealing with immaterial objects. But the general hype in this particular field makes it perhaps the most difficult.

editing rules - PetrowskajaEdit

Dear DGG, thanks a lot for advices and correcting. Corrected now also my rejected draft Hope it fits better now. Chr. Cphweise (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for your comments on my attempt to get this previously rejected article over the line. I am new to creating and editing articles, and it is useful to have advice on how much to include, or not, as far as supporting quotes go. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing Team newsletter.Edit

Recent changesEdit

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sylvia Spring - "deleted self-serving promotional quotes"Edit

Hi DGG, I notice that you have edited this article. I have no problem with that, but I do wonder why you described it as "deleting self-serving promotional quotes". I have no connection at all with Sylvia Spring - I had not heard of her before I saw the AfD. I included quotes from her as I thought they were interesting. Perhaps they are not appropriate for the style of Wikipedia - as I have said, I am new here. But they were in no way "self-serving" or "promotional", and your assumption that they were is unfounded, and unnecessary to include in a description of the edits you have done. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

there's a problem with our terminology here: we use promotionalism to include advocacy. Just as it is essentially impossible to write an articles about a consumer product without some degree of promotionalism, it is essentially impossible to write about an advocate without including some degree of advocacy. Anything qwrittene about a good cause has the effect of advocating for it. There is no cut-and-dried solution here--it takes careful writing and rewriting to get the most objective article possible that is still not a mere directory entry. I made a partial attempt towards this, but I am not satisfied with the result.
the comments referred to are ones she made, in an apparent effort to promote her own importance. They are therefore inappropriate in an encyclopedia.We sometimes will include a limited number of such quotes from a famous person; she is notable, not famous. In my opinion there is much more promotional material to be removed--she is an advocate for a cause, and the description of her causes belongs in the subject articles about them. Some of the organization don't have articles--perhaps they can be written. Further, the inclusion within the text of extensive paragraphs of quotations from the reviews is in m opinion not a good idea. The best way to handle these is to but them in the footnotes as part of the citation. I did the minimum I thought necessary, and I hope that you will work on it further. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


...What is truly sad is that he died so early; what is particularly unfortunate for WP is that we lost an excellent editor, and a still more excellent organizer and advocate. As I knew him, he was not the sort of person to think all of his work was perfect, any more than I think mine--although what he accomplished in the early days of the education program was much more important to WP than anything I have been able to do here. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

== Request on 18:48:22, 11 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Robhmac ==

Regarding Draft:Erie High School (Pennsylvania) I do not know what else you require for this article stub to be acceptable. I've included THREE external, third-party sources, including the school's official website, the school district's website, as well as the local newspaper article that documents how and when the school was formed by the merger of other high schools. It was never my intention to write a full article, just enough to update all of the other Erie high school pages that imply that they still exist as high schools. However, if I have not provided enough sources, can you give me some more details, such as what else should be added? Thank you so much.

Robhmac (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If it were up to me it would be acceptable. But the purpose of AfC is to evaluate what the consensus is going to consider acceptable. The current opinion here is that unsourced articles on high schools will be deleted. I have argued against this for many years, and I thought that I had established the principle that high schools would always be considered notable or the purposes of WP. In the last year, the consensus has been otherwise, in spite of the greatest effort to prevent this change that could be made by me and the others who agreed with me. One of the characteristics of the way things work here is that the interpretations of the rules are not fixed, but can change. Nobody here can tell other people here what they must do: there is no such authority, and consequently sometimes not a great deal of stability. there really is no alternative between there being an authoritative top-down decision making and relying on the general agreement ( we could do it by voting--we don't , we do it by a sort of rough consensus.) It would be irresponsible of me to tell you it was OK when I think it likely that this will not be the decision.
How much sourcing is required is however an open question. I suggest that you first check for articles about the school in the local news sources--here ought to be some, especially if there was a period of changes in the organization and consolidation of schools in the district. Then the best approach might be to write a combination article, High schools in.... . I shall certainly support it, and I hope others will also. But the nature of WP is that neither I nor anyone else can make any promises. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Lactobacillus kefiriEdit

Regarding your note on Draft:Lactobacillus kefiri, all accepted taxa are inherently notable. The only times a species page is not warranted is if it is in a monotypic taxon and the genus page exists, or for prehistoric species where the species are not that distinct in the fossil record. Not saying that draft was ready to roll otherwise, though. --Nessie (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

certainly they are. I've been saying so for 11 years here, and it is one of the areas where there has been consistent consensus, mainly because the people who do not understand the subject do not edit in the area. But, as you say, it is still the case that this is a very incomplete article , especially because it is a well studied species and economically and medically important. The article when I saw it did not even have the taxobox giving basic biology, and gives only one of the multiple applications -and the single reference doesn't even support the statement of that particular use in the article. Further, the application specified is unlikely to be the most important one at least to a general reader--and for good measure that use, as a probiotic, would require a MEDRS compliant source.
There is a difference between an article on a species of interest only to specialists in a group, and that on an organism like this. I therefore considered it not only incomplete, but seriously misleading. .It would in my opinion not be a good idea for it to go to mainspace until it has been expanded,. Normally I would say an article even so incomplete can be fixed in mainspace, but not when it is misleading to that extent, and on a topic relating to human medicine.
what really surprises me is that we did not already have an article. You are a very experienced editor in this area; you do not need to use the AfC process. I assume you do because you do what your work reviewed. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


IOTA_Technology ReviewEdit

Hi DGG, I have been rewriting the IOTA Wikipedia page. Could you give me your criticism as I work towards your blessing of publishing it as an article? - Tsangares (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  1. . It is not clear whether this is an already adopted technology, or one that is still under development. If it has not yet been adopted, it may not be possible to write an article unless there are already substantial 3rd party independent published reliable sources, discussing it. Too many of the references here are from their own web site. Too much of the article talks about prospective future additions.
  2. . In particular, when you discuss uses, you need to distinguish between actual known uses for the technology supported by 3rd party reliable sources, and prospective uses supported only by the company web site.
  3. . You also need to write in an encyclopedic manner, not aas ifyou were lecturing us. "It is important to note that ..." should be rewritten as "X... " Check alsothat you are using formal wording, not phrases like "off of". . DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey DGG, thank you for reviewing my page. I was going to start revising the page on your suggestions when I realized someone deleted it. Is there any way for me to get the draft back? I spent a whole weekend writing what was there. Tsangares (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)



I hope you run to be on ArbCom again. Please do. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

At the last minute, I have decided to. The time it takes in relation to the useful work I can do is lower than almost everywhere else on WP, and I have been able to accomplish much less than I might have elsewhere, but perhaps what I have been able to do there has been something that few of the other people on the committee have been inclined to do. Unlike some of the other candidates, I am interested in accomplishing specific things. If people support them enough to elect me I will be pleased that the committee might accomplish something; if people do not support them, then I will have been saved the frustration of uselessly trying, and will be able to redirect my time to other projects here where I know I can be effective. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)...

AfC notification: Draft:Michael Sayman has a new commentEdit

I've modified the article based on your feedback and have left a comment on your comment, which can be viewed at Draft:Michael Sayman. Thanks! -- Purplehippo458 (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


Susan EubanksEdit

Hi! I was checking to see if there was an article about this topic, and I saw a message about it duplicating an existing topic. Where is this duplicated topic? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I will get there, but probably after the Thanksgiving. holiday DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


Correction to deleted article- Emily ShuckburghEdit


Would it be possible to undo the deletion of

I'll then fix the issue asap, it's my first article so I'm still learning here.

Thanks!LyraSilvertongue29 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I will get there, but probably after the Thanksgiving. holiday DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou so much! It seems it was a borderline copyright issue so I can fix that easily, I just failed to see the notifications in time- will try and make sure that doesn't happen in the future.LyraSilvertongue29 (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


The Next WebEdit

DGG - in 2016 you nominated The Next Web for deletion. I can't see the deleted page but I assume, from the discussion, it was typical, self-referencing promotional chaff. In any case, I've recently had occasion to source content to something they published so took the liberty of checking to see if the notability situation had changed and I think it has, enough, to warrant a stub. Before I recreate it, though, I wanted to check with you to see if you agreed or not? I made a draft here. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

in a few days, after Thanksgiving. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

NPP ReviewEdit

Hi DGG! I noticed that you marked the page Google News Lab as patrolled. When I came across it, though, it still had a lot of problems, such as not linking to the page for Google, not including projects on its talk page, not including categories, etc. I'm in the process of fixing those, but I just wanted to open a conversation with you, since it's my understanding that those things are required before a page should be marked as patrolled. You're more experienced at NPP than I am, though, so if there's a rationale behind marking that sort of page as patrolled, feel free to let me know. Sorry if this comes off as accusing you of not being thorough; I'm not trying to do that, but more rather just get a sense of what the norms are in NPP since I'm new to being a patroller. Hopefully that makes sense, and thanks for your thoughts! - Sdkb (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sdkb, You are correct that I did not really complete this adequately. Here's why: The basic decision I was trying to make, is whether it should be necessary to send it to Draft space for further work; I almost did that, but finally decided that first, it was not just notable, but quite important, and that on a topic of as general interest here as this, it would be more likely to get the necessary improvement in mainspace. I therefore marked it as reviewed, but found it necessary to stop at that point. There's no clear practice on how much tagging is needed at NPP -- I usually do the most critical issue only. I do not usually add categories, for there are a number of people here who specialize in it; uncategorized articles are automatically marked, and they will get the needed work (and because I have considerable disagreement with the way categories are used here, so I think it better not to interfere). I usually do add the basic links--others typically get added later. I normally try to make sure the first sentence at least is clear, and the overall organization reasonably standard. But fundamentally in NPP I am looking for signs that the article shouldn't be here at all, because of promotionalism or lack of notability , or copypaste. These are the things that should not be missed.
The additional work on it you did was correct, and illustrates the way WP manages to work: people here tend to make up for each other's deficiencies.
I should also add that as a teacher, I have found it very effective to make use of my inevitable errors for the purpose of explaining how I came to make them, so that others would learn. I'm therefore always glad to have them pointed out here so I have the opportunity. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's all helpful to know! Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachel Parent for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachel Parent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

FWIW, I comment at this afd: "as I said in AfD1, "possibly speedy delete G11 as promotionalism. A report of a non notable activist's series of minor interviews" " The article, however, was kept DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(about teaching paid editors)Edit


2. In principle, we should teach people. This is however not easy. I've taught WP to hundreds of people in classes, and only a few have become regular editors. I've mentored a good number of PR people and others with COI, and I have found it very difficult to get them to write what is wanted, tho there have been a few successes. It is very difficult to really persuade someone that what they want to write about themselves is not what is appropriate here. It is very difficult for even a very good PR editor to get an honest non-promotional article approved by their client. (Several good PR people who have been reasonably good declared paid editors have abandoned this line of their business for that reason). And who will teach them? If I were to do nothing else, I might be able to try to teach 2 or 3 people a day, and I expect the result would be that only one of them will in the end be willing to learn. (In practice, I do 1 or 2 a week) I do not think there are more than 20 people on the English WP who are willing to do even that much. But we get over 1000 promotional articles submitted every day.
3. What I do hope to do , is to persuade people to write general articles about their industry. I and a few others have tried, and we've had some professional associations cooperate with us, and we've had some individual success. (The best example is medicine, where there's an organized effort for this, which is being done quite well. I'm not involved in that one--I prefer to try to work in the fields or aspects that are not yet going well. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Page lengthEdit

Your talk page is currently 816,412 bytes long (with 370 sections). That makes it unusable for some editors. Please archive most of it, in smaller chunks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

by the end of the year; but it will still be longer than you would probably like. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
+1 As a user on a 1 GB per week data volume quota I am not happy to lose 0.1% for an ordinary talk page visit. There are bots for archiving... Thanks for considering, and greetings from Namibia, Pgallert (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I recognize the problem, but there are others who have told me they appreciate having all important recent things I have worked on in one place. But perhaps what I really need to do is to move some of this into essays. DGG ( talk ) 11:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Robert M. EpsteinEdit

I was browsing WP:REFUND and saw that you turned Robert M. Epstein into a live article. As far as I can tell, the entire content of that page, with the exception of some memberships in professional associations, is based on Epstein's own work and words. I am well aware that requirements for secondary sources are, shall we say, relaxed for people who meet WP:PROF, but that seems extreme. Furthermore, much of the content doesn't even seem based on the cited sources or even flat-out misrepresents them (in a way that promotes Epstein). Were you aware of these issues? This is a BLP, after all. Huon (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did not do it as well as I should have. As you recognize, the membership in the National Academy of Medicine is enough to pass WP:PROF, and in my opinion even a sourced stub saying no more than that would be sufficient for mainspace, though I myself never write anything that sparse. The content needs reliable sourcing, not necessarily independent sourcing. A person's CV is suitable for that. . But you are absolutely right there are some sentences that make claims that are not supported, and I did intend to go back to the article. I removed them now. Thee's one I think could be supported but needs a cite and I marked it. I had meant to remove most of the material about university service, as I usually do; I removed it now. There's a running debate about whether to make improvements beyond those necessary to pass afd indraftspace or in main space; I take an intermediatep position, that they could be done either way. Of course, the danger of doing it in mainspace is that one might forget to go back, or, more likely with me, be diverted into other things,, so I should have done more here. Thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
and my difficulty is that in reviewing deleted G13s to see what shouldn't have been deleted, a/I seem to be the only one doing it and b/ there is no single step process for seeing the contents, Both of these get me frustrated every time I do it, so I do get tempted to do it as quickly as possible, which is not always a good thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with explaining NAUTHOR/CREATIVE?Edit

Hi DGG, I have someone arguing that coverage (ie, reviews) for an author's works doesn't count towards notability for that individual, as that would be the author inheriting notability for the works. I'm going to try to clarify my viewpoints, but I wondered if you would be willing to help as well. I think that since the article was created by one of my students, they may be assuming that I'm making the argument to save their work. (I did spiffy it up by adding the reviews and some tweaks, but I wouldn't move bad work live, of course.) I think hearing it from another person would probably help reassure them. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Of course if you disagree, I totally respect that. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Reviews of their work are the principle thing that count for notability of an author. Ideally, substantial critical reviews from independent reliable sources. Authors do derive notability from their works, just as athletes from their performances, politicians from the office they win. What would possibly make an author notable except publishing notable works? Generally not their personal lives, and what else is there? Even prizes are normally for a particular work, though a few are for a whole career.
The question however is how many works, and what kind of reviews., I consider, and thousands of AfDs have uniformly confirmed, that the consensus here is that two or more notable works is enough .The usual problem comes from an author writing only non-notable works, and here I would be very reluctant to consider notability without very good sources about the author that are more than PR. The other likely dilemma is for an author who whas written a single notable work. A good case can be made forthe article being about the book, or about the author--I do not think it matters much, butI usually prefer the author because the author article has moreo f an opportunity for expansion as almost everyone who succeeds in writing one notable work writes others, but I have always opposed having 2 articles in such cases, unless the author is truly famous; there have been only a few genuine cases.
However, in practice it depends upon the reviews. Borderline significant reviews I do not consider sufficient, by which I mean the brief reviews in Publishers Weekly and the similar. I will look at the specific case later tonight.
And rest assured that if I disagreed with you I would say so. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to soften Jytdog rulingEdit

Though I am still worried about your opinion of WP:N, thanks for your comment here. There, but for the grace of God, go all of us who care just a bit too much about the Wikipedia. Poor Dog. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi DGG. Since you mentioned on Jytdog's user talk that you going to try continue on with his efforts with respect to COI/Paid stuff, I wonder what you think about ThoughtNoodle. The contributions do sort of indicate (at least to me) that there might be some undiclosed paid editing going on. The editor has previously denied this before on their user talk, but there lots of overlap and an undeniable connection between the articles they are choosing to edit. FWIW, this is the kind of thing I typically asked Jytdog about to get another opinion before actually interacting with the editor-in-question. However, there's an added bonus in asking you since you are also an admin and therefore any post from you to this editor might carry a little more weight than something from me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course the likelihood is being a paid editor, but some of the articles may represent genuine interests of their own. I have never seen the point of repeatedly asking an editor after they deny it. But see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Safari Industries. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough and thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


The spread of votes for the elected and top 2 unelected candidates was very small as compared to past elections. I am going to regard the result as a random fluctuation rather than an indication of anything. . DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Although I am still upset about some of the things, but not seeing you for another term is more upsetting. There is now more establishment than ever, but less, if not non-existent at all, member that are willing to uphold the terms of use on what this project was and should continue to be about. But I suppose more productive work are done on the sidelines. Alex Shih (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh. That sucks. You had my vote, for what it's worth. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Really sad more so as you had the Second highest number of supports after GorillaWarfare. Tactical voting appears to have done it.Really cannot see any reason to oppose you.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I thank you for re-running and for promoting stricter action on COI issues while you were on ArbCom. I'm sorry you didn't make the top six this time. Perhaps another year. Softlavender (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 😞 I share the same sentiments as Alex. Atsme✍🏻📧 03:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • ditto the above:( Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Mark SissonEdit

Hi as you are more experienced than Wikipedia than me I wanted to ask you about this entry. I just spent ages looking for reliable sources for Mark Sisson and they appear to be lacking. I am thinking about submitting it for deletion. There are hundreds of primary sources that mention him or websites advertising his products, but no neutral reliable secondary sources. Any ideas what to do here? MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that he is notable as an author--his diet books arein a remarkable number of libraries. There should be reviews for them. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Problem is, can't find any reliable reviews. I have access to various journals, I am a fan of checking up on book reviews, but I can't find anything. He is mentioned in the The New York Times but only in passing. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

(a band)Edit

... as with other bands, there is also the concern that coverage that appears to be secondary might really just be the result of a press release. My sense is when the band is touring, there is a massive amount of monetary outlays promoting the concerts, so differentiating advertising from truly independent coverage is not always so easy. This article on the band's use of social media to promote itself gives a sense of the money involved and major corporate advertising connections needed to go big. Is it just because of talent? I think not. I think it is mostly about money and good PR, something I think both of us are equally concerned about with regard to Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of industries built in large part upon hype. In such fields, you are completely right that it is difficult to distinguish NPOV sources from PR. In particular for some genres of music it is impossible to distinguish--what makes a group notable is the publicity it gets, not its actual music. This is true to some extent even in the world in general. PR contributors I trust have told me, what I should have realized myself, that the goals of the best PR is to get genuine news and magazine accounts written about their subject, and that essentially all magazine articles or newspaper features about most topics are to some extent based on PR no matter how high the quality of the source that publishes it.
What I think this means for WP is that for material about organizations & people connected with them & some fields of sports and entertainment, it makes no sense to use the number and type of sourcing for notability, but we must base our inclusion criteria on known or presumed real world importance, and judge it by the most objective means available For content we should consider everything no matter how commercial as a possible source, but judge it for what it is worth (for an example, the words "leading" or 'famous" is unreliable no matter where published. It's just part of the PR boilerplate & if a reputable journalist copies it, they're not being as responsible as they pretend to be.
The difficulty is that this requires the sort of judgment many enWP contributors do not have. The first step in this direction would be an explicit rule, that the extent and detail of an article depends upon the importance within its field, as judged by either objective criteria or by true experts, not upon the number of sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think there are recognized source for film, even new film, and even new film out of the mainstream, but it takes experts in these sub-genres to find them, and I am not. This is much more the case than it was 12 years ago: popular culture of all sorts is an academic field, and academics write books and articles. I have not had time to get back to the NYPL Film division fo do any actual work there for several years now, but we can use the criteria of recognition by experts even in these areas. I'd like to encourage any WPedian who knows and uses academic sources in this field to come forward. But there's another factor, even for critically insignificant art, if it is nonetheless popular enough , we ought to cover it, and here we need people who can judge the various source for popularity. Contrary to WP dogma, popularity is one form of notability -- so is excellence, merit, influence, and recognition. Any of these count in any field. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I am ignorant about the relationship of youtube to the artists they record. Thinking about fields I do know about, there are many cases of major differences between the published version and the authors' preferred version. In discussing them, we need to talk about all released versions, though we need not necessarily link to them. (for major authors & works, we also need to talk about their unpublished manuscript versions) That's what we do with film and books. There are certainly cases where the critically preferred version is, and also where it is not, the authors official version. Art is among other things, meant to sell, and the version that is legally sold can usually assumed to be the basic version or the purpose of discussion. The question of authorial intention is a very difficult one, and I have never subscribed to the critical theory that a work means what the creator says it means, or even what he intends it to mean.
More generally, a WP article about will normally have at least the by-product of promoting the subject it discusses. An article about anything good or interesting in even the most NPOV terms will have a promotional effect. Often , this even extends to subjects where the NPOV view cannot help having have negative implications--some people will still think, bad as it is, it might be interesting. Almost every article here on a book, film, or published music has the effect of promoting it, and the financial benefit will usually go both the creator and the publisher. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018Edit

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
Learning from Zotero

Zotero is free software for reference management by the Center for History and New Media: see Wikipedia:Citing sources with Zotero. It is also an active user community, and has broad-based language support.

Besides the handiness of Zotero's warehousing of personal citation collections, the Zotero translator underlies the citoid service, at work behind the VisualEditor. Metadata from Wikidata can be imported into Zotero; and in the other direction the zotkat tool from the University of Mannheim allows Zotero bibliographies to be exported to Wikidata, by item creation. With an extra feature to add statements, that route could lead to much development of the focus list (P5008) tagging on Wikidata, by WikiProjects.

Zotero demo video

There is also a large-scale encyclopedic dimension here. The construction of Zotero translators is one facet of Web scraping that has a strong community and open source basis. In that it resembles the less formal mix'n'match import community, and growing networks around other approaches that can integrate datasets into Wikidata, such as the use of OpenRefine.


Leandro de Moura Ribeiro: self-promotion articleEdit

Hi. I would like to report what I believe to be a self-promotion article.

This article supposedly talks about a Brazilian personality. Still, there is no article about this person in the Wikipedia written in Portuguese. More than that, an article about this person was once created and soon after excluded in the Wikipedia written in Portuguese, since it talked about a clearly non-notable subject.

References 1, 3, and 5 come from self-published sources. Reference 2 is a mere proficiency test result. Reference 4 does not talk about the person in the article. References 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 do not talk about him directly and, besides that, they come from local and very small newspapers (there are no written in Portuguese articles about "midiamax", "Campo Grande News", "MS Notícias", or "Folha Integração").

Finally, the author of the article is the person that the article talks about. Diogo Ladeira Sales (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Documentation
Thank you for providing the most directly informative user page that I have seen so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Driving to Geronimo's GraveEdit

I don't understand your objection to pick me publishing and article about a collection of stories written by an author who has been working in the field over 40 years and has won numerous awards over his long career. Maybe if you learned a little bit about this guy, you wouldn't think his books were not worthy of articles on Wikipedia. I mean what do you want me to do? Read and comment and spoil each novella? There's nothing that pisses me off more than an editor that gives a 2 paragraph synopsis of what happens in a book to have the entire work ruined. I don't publish high school level book reports! If that has come down to doing that just to get my article published, then I'm done as an editor.PKDASD 21:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If you were going to write about the individual stories, yes you would have to give a very brief precis of the entire plot, including the ending. See WP:SPOILER. Everyone should realize by now that WP includes complete plots, and if they don't want to know the ending, they shouldn't come here. We're an encyclopedia , not a place to publish teasers. But I see no evidence that this particular collection is notable enough to have a WP article about it at all.
Are the individual stories notable? Have people written extensive critical commentary about any or all of them? Have any of them won an award individually? If so, they could each have an article. If these individual stories are not notable, but the overall work in that format is, which is probably the case, there would be reason for a collected article about his short stories, where each of them is described in a paragraph--this is one of the options at WP:GNG. Is this particular collection of stories notable as a collection? Is there substantial reviews of this particular collection? Did this particular collection win an award ? If it did, add that information and there can be an article.
The fact that an author is notable, does not make each of their individual works notable, much less each individual reprinted selection of them. If an author is very notable, then we can justify a separate article about each major novel, but only if an author is actually famous, which usually means Nobel prize calibre, then we probably could have articles about each of their individual works, down to each short story; but even then we usually do not go to that level except for the best known and most published-about stories. And even then we don't list particular selected works as separate articles. We haven't even done that for Shakespeare--we do justify articles for each play and each sonnets, but that's because multiple critical work has been published about each. We could probably justify articles about some of the most famous collected editions, which have been similarly discussed. But we do not even for him make a separate article for each volume containing a selection of his plays or a selection of the poems.
There may be some existing articles here at this level about Lansdale's minor works or collections similar to this one. When I have no higher priority, I will probably challenge them. I'm not going to challenge articles about his major novels--nobody would do that. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thank you very much for supporting me in this polite way. If in the future I'll have any questions I'll not hesitate to contact you. -- 4evayoung77 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi DGB, I want ask my first question. But first, I want to explain the broader context of my request. Yesterday I created my fourth article (Athanasio Celia)... surprisingly, at the moment when I decided to create the article, I read, that before 12 years another editor tried to create the same topic, but the article was rejected (obviously the editor couldn't provide enough evidence of notability). However I decided to proceed because I'm convinced about the notability of my article (I know, that a few other editors are also convinced about the notability of the article, because they contributed already kindly to its improvement). But suddenly today a new editor decided to delete the article, and I think that the only reason - in my opinion - can be, that the subject was deleted again in the past. Now my question: how long will that deletion discussion last?... exists I time-frame for that procedure?... and can I as editor not only participate in the discussion, but also vote? (Thank you in advance...) 4evayoung77 (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

4evayoung77, you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athanasio Celia (2nd nomination) . The discussion lasts for 7 days, sometimes longer. Everyone's view counts; it is not a vote. It is decided not on whether thee is some intrinsic importance, but whether you can show he meets WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, on the basis of third party sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Fixing ping since ping of 4evayoung77 did not work above. Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
talk]]) 12:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Your helpful comments on Leanne M Williams reviewEdit

Dear DGG Thank you for your helpful comments on the draft page for Leanne M Williams.

I would like to take you up on your offer of help editing based on your experience with academic pages.

Initial questions are 1. How do I make the change from WP:GNG to WP:PROF

2. There are up to 250 independent peer-reviewed scientific citations to include. Is the best approach to add those based on the most highly cited as suggested. I had been following the recommendation to start small but this may have been misleading about the independent information. Leanne_M_Williams 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanne M Williams (talkcontribs)

Template:U: Leanne M Williams: You do not need to make a change of GNG to WP:PROF. Scientists can be notable under either guideline, and meeting either one is sufficient. Evaluating the article under GNG was simply not correct. It's a common error in new page patrol and AfC. Dealing with the error is up to the other patrollers. As a very experienced patroller, I try to correct the error when I see it. In dealing with those who use it inappropriately I have found that my fixing it is usually enough of a hint. If anyone disagrees, there's a range of rather complicated procedures that I'd rather not get into now; I'll just say the basic guideline involved has been supported in every challenge for the last 10 years.
In terms of material to include, the general rule that I follow is to add the 3 or 4 most cited articles. Usually I take the numbers from Google Scholar, even though it's a little less accurate than Web of Science or Scopus, because anyone can verify it. If there are books, they should be added also. I never include chapters in books or conference papers, (except in those fields where conference papers are the most important publications). The standard for citation varies with field. In the biomedical sciences, most discussions have concluded that at least one paper with > 100 GS citations is necessary; you have many more, but you should give a link to your CV, and to Google Scholar, and people can see them there ( In the text, It is usually best to cite in addition only those papers that may have been responsible for the most important prizes, or that have made a really major discovery.
Even more important is to avoid wording that would be more appropriate for a web site than an encyclopedia . You need to say what you have done, not what you hope to do , or what the implications are. Use the sort of very carefully neutral and modest language one would use in the conclusion to a paper. This is why we say that it is very strongly advised not to write one's autobiography--it is difficult to be really objective. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
As I had not heard from you, I dealt with the article myself. . If there is material you wish to add, do not add it yourself to the article, but rather to the article's talk page, followed by {{Request Edit}}. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Re 'Trans Tryer'Edit

Hello, DGG. Recently you wrote about a draft I created with this name. Briefly: I recently read a news item which stated that WP had a new agreement with Google Translate. Because I read that, and am an optimist, I hoped that WP had created a new, automated 'mechanism'. Fooled again.

While I was exploring that, hoping to decipher where/how this might work (after, for the last time, struggling through WP's abysmal writeup on translation) ... I created a draft container. I gave it that throwaway name to do the experiment.

A machine translation is sometimes adequate to get a decent article stubbed. It's more valuable to get the translation into a visible page, thereby gaining an audience and opening an editing field for people who may not be expert editors, but may very well be very familiar with the subject-matter. As far as I could figure out, the news release was complete BS.

I do not wish to have anything to do with using Google directly. I consider their translations to be mostly shitty (as in: why do they even bother), but they are helpful in gathering facts that are helpful for research ... names, dates, places, etc. I've used that tactic several times in the past.

I will bother only with: 1) WP will take my request for a Google translation, ship that off to Google, and 2) pick up the result and drop it into my user-box. I'll take it from there. I'd be VERY glad to take advantage of such automation to improve many existing English articles about Europeans.

I'm not interested in wasting time on process (unlike many editors) ... I want to do research and create quality writeups, not turn endless cranks. So since I'm done, if you want to translate the article, that'd be great. Thanks for asking, and if/when WP gets its act together, if I'm still alive, I'll be thrilled. Twang (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Most people at the English Wikipedia fully share your skepticism. The use of the WP translate feature , whether with or without G Translate, is in fact not authorized here except for experienced users. As I mentioned, I do some translations of straightforward articles from frWP, and I never use it--I test it from time to time to see if it has gotten any better, but l tried a few days ago, & threw out the result and started over. The use of GTranslate as a starting point is sometimes helpful. How close it comes depends on the subject and the language, and I have never seen a translation from it that doesn't need revision--usually substantial revision. (I really do not see why machine translation can not automatically substitute it for she when referring to inanimate objects in Spanish, for example, or know to use the past tense for past events) But it's a help sometimes, like a dictionary. The actually difficult factor in doing translations is not as much language skills, as cultural and subject knowledge. The institutions mentioned need to be specified so they will be understood--the terms of art used properly--the historical events & the geography put in context.
There's a lot of machinery here that most people ignore, and only a few specialists bother with. As you realize, you don't have to know things like categories or reference format to write articles. All that is necessary is to get the article right and see that it is referenced clearly enough in any format so that some of the many people who do like to check such things can adjust the details. So I very strongly urge you to do just that:use the other language's article for information, and write an equivalent. it doesn't even have to be a translation, just an equivalent, with more or less detail as appropriate, and even a start at one that makes an understandable stub is helpful DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Linda GottfredsonEdit

Hello DGG,

Recently you contributed to the Talk:Linda Gottfredson [42] page and shared some helpful insights. As it stands, there are five editors in consensus over the proposed changes, and only one against. I wanted to reach out to you directly to see if you would, at this point, be willing to enact the changes. If not, I'd appreciate any advice you could offer regarding the next step forward.

Thanks for your assistance, 2601:42:800:A9DB:C552:99A0:180E:B293 (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

perhaps you would specify the changes you would like to make. Alternatively, make them , and let me know, and I will go there and comment, DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey DGG -- The proposed changes were noted on the Gottfredson page, and I see you largely agreed with them. However, one person as expected still vehemently disagrees. Do you believe it's fair to proceed with the changes since the consensus appears to be in agreement? Thanks once again for your insight. 2601:42:800:A9DB:155D:A6E0:AB26:C927 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I will comment, but I cannot impose my own view of what is the correct version. No single admin can do that, though an uninvolved single admin can summarize a dispute. I will however, make some suggestions for going forward forward, including additional people to ask. .
But , having read the material, I am no longer an uninvolved administrator. I now have a definite view on the subject, which is that her published work is in no way racist . . All I can therefore do is argue for it, like any other editor. This is why I do not act as an admin in fields where I are very much about personally--and for the ones I really personally care strongly about, I will usually not even edit, for I do not like to get involved in the usual WP cross-exchanges about who of the various people with strong opinions is the most biased. I could have chosen otherwise, and used my skills in understanding scientific material and constructing effective arguments according to any arbitrary set of rules (even such as those used in WP) to try to bring important WP articles to express what I think a fair view of the subject. Some early experiences here have left me with the impression that anyone trying to give a fair view of a controversial subject will be subject to abuse from both sides and is unlikely to make progress.
I've therefore preferred to work in other aspects- , rescuing poor but improvable articles in any field I know enough to do so, and trying, conversely, to keep advertising and self-promotion out of Wikipedia.these are things I can do with needing to have an opinion on the subject. That I'm going to get involved in the argument here is one of my rare exceptions. I do need to ask you a question about conflict of interest--you can do this best by emailing me. in confidence. I'm still bound by the proises of confidentiality I undertook as an arbitrator. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
In case your inquiry is in regards to my possible affiliation with Gottfredson, allow me to answer preemptively: I have absolutely no affiliation with Gottfredson; I don’t know her in person, nor am I being compensated in any manner for editing her article. My interest in her article is a product of my observance of the misrepresentation of her and others in controversial fields, and I’ve edited a few other articles on similar topics.
Should you have any further questions, or if this wasn’t relevant to what you were going to ask, I’m once again more than willing to answer via e-mail or on this page. However, if this answer puts you at ease, I’d like to redirect you back to the article at hand — Do you think we have enough of a consensus to proceed with the proposed changes? If not, I’d appreciate your experienced input regarding what our course of action should be. 2601:42:800:A9DB:F986:3B6F:D612:B874 (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
See above about uninvolved--I want confirmation. . I am asking two very sensible editors whom I really trust to say what they think without necessarily agreeing with me : Bri, atsme . DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
From my perspective, DGG is involved; therefore, any edits he makes or opinions he expresses will not be in his capacity as an admin. Regarding the potential of a COI involving the IP, my initial thoughts are to WP:AGF, and accept his public denial of a COI in his paragraph above. Since local consensus agrees with what the IP recommended, I'm of the mind that an informal summary of those arguments would suffice as support for a BRD edit. If the opposing editor objects, then a formal RfC should be called. I will also add an excerpt from what I consider to be an enlightening discussion which may have some relevance here. I keep it displayed at the top of my user TP under the title "To include it in a BLP or not?": A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views. (quote by Zaereth edited for brevity; Jimbo Wales agreed.) Hope that helps. Atsme✍🏻📧 11:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, I really appreciate the response, and agree with your referenced quote -- This line of thinking is what drives me to assist biography pages which have been written unfairly due to ideological bias.
With that said, DGG, do you intend to make the edit(s) based on the proposed changes, or would you rather another trusted member weigh in before we proceed? Thanks once again, 2601:42:800:A9DB:ECC0:551B:9183:5CD6 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I was waiting for the conclusion of Amendment request: Race and intelligence, [43], because the issues there are closely related, I take the result to mean that the majority of the present arb com is in agreement with my view of it, though, there also, at least one person is not. But you will notice Atsme's point, that this will probably lead to a formal RfC , in which case everything will have to be disputed here yet again. The result will be, as always, unpredictable. If so, I will probably feel that I have to comment in it, and this is a topic I very emphatically do not want to work on at Wikipedia. I shall do what I think the minimum necessary. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense. Do you happen to know when a decision will be rendered on that case? 2601:42:800:A9DB:F0B3:BBB1:C14B:1097 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
this issue is not going to be finally resolved for a long time. As I have said, I don't intend to follow it. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was referring to the specific amendment request you linked — when do you believe that will be finalized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:800:A9DB:F0B3:BBB1:C14B:1097 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
DGG, I’ve noticed the amendment request you linked has finalized and a positive decision rendered. Though I don’t want to appear overbearing, I did want to know if, as a result, you were going to implement the aforementioned changes to the Gottfredson article. I do understand your voiced reluctance to edit articles for which you hold a strong opinion, so if you’d rather not participate, that’s fine. However, in that case, I will be implementing the changes myself over the next few days. Thanks once again for your input. 2601:42:800:A9DB:A935:EBC7:C736:8F74 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment about revising promotional articles, from a user talk p.Edit

But this further explains my dissatisfaction with negotiating articles with coi editors. I can revise an article till I think it acceptable, and fair, and informatively describes the subject. . What I can not do and will not do, is revise an article so if makes a more effective presentation of the subject. Presenting the subject effectively the way they would want to be presented, is the job of PR, and a perfectly respectable thing to do--elsewhere. I will not help anyone do it here, and to the extent I edit, I will reduce the article to documented informative material: forsome relevant examples, if a person's books and awards are listed once, it provides the needed information, and there is no need to list them twice over. If reviews are cited, there's no reason to pick our the favorable bits. If someone's avocational interests unrelated to notability are mentioned and linked to a source for further information, there's no need to explain them further. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

NYU faculty articlesEdit

Hello, I looked over Marisa Carrasco, changed "Publications" to "References" and removed the tags per the talk page comments. The references on the article, and the many not there, are enough to show notability. As noted if there are continuing neutrality concerns they can be addressed on the talk page. Many times I tag or leave comments on article talk pages, in attempts to not be a "drive-by tagger", with plans to revisit. It is made easier when there are comments of substance. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no concerns about her notability, because WP:PROF relies on impact, which in the sciences is measured by quotations to her publications, and the GNG and its baroque ramifications are usually irrelevant. Her citation record does show that, and I'll add them. (somebody should have already, but this is WP). There is nothing wrong with calling attention to WP:PROF articles which may imply notability , but do not show it. Most of the time the ones that need deletion for lack of notability by WP:PROF are also highly promotional, so it is rational to check carefully everything done by a promotional editor. And of course there's a degree of blatant advertising where TNT is applicable, I try to balance that factor with notability, because it is impractical to devote the time to fixing the articles where notability is just borderline. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019Edit

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.


Rescuing Draft:Kenneth CalhounEdit

I noticed that you restored Draft:Kenneth Calhoun. Do you believe you could rescue the topic based on this version? That was my attempt to salvage it. My effort was disliked both by the original author, who seemed to want the article to be more like something a publicist would write, and by the next reviewer, who wanted a dry recitation. From there the draft sank into a downward spiral of the original author hacking it down and reviewers not seeing notability in the shrinking draft.

I believe the sources and further reading in my version demonstrate notability. The prose may be terrible, and some of the personal detail can seem irrelevant at first, but later it ties into his writing. The more complete biography hits the points that the sources noted, and better serves our readers than baldly stating that he won prizes X, Y, and Z, without any explanation of how he arrived there or where his work springs from. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

some of should be reinserted, and the reviews moved from the further reading to the main text, but the criticism that this was overdetail is I think correct. I do not know if it will pass AfD, as there's only 1 significant reviewed book, but it will be worth a chance there. You might want to give it a try yourself and let me know. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Recheck

New York Public Library for the Performing ArtsEdit

Hello DGG. At outreach:Wikipedian in Residence your Wikimedian in Residence project at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts still has the information "under construction" as project page. Could you please link to the project page at outreach so that everyone interested can learn about your project? Thank you so much, --Gereon K. (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

actually, I haven't been doing it for several years now,and I'm not sure whether or not I will be able to return. DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, yes, but I think it would be nice if the Wikimedian in Residence list on outreach would contain a link to the project (no matter if it's up to date or from 2012), so that interested readers could learn about the project. --Gereon K. (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Academic publisher "monitoring"Edit

Do you know if there's anywhere, e.g. a wikiproject, where data are collected on publishers that are cited on Wikipedia with citation templates? Having run across this citation, where Springer Publishing was listed as the publisher of something from Springer Nature, and having made the same mistake myself plenty of times (e.g. spending time seeking Publishing books at, I wonder if there's anywhere that could be used to find likely errors of this sort. Not computer-processable, of course, but a human could look at a list of pages citing Springer Publishing titles and identify topics, like this one, that don't have anything to do with their fields.

Also, do you know if there's a way to look up matches between URLs and publisher names in citation templates? The first diff made me wonder about finding such issues elsewhere, and here I changed a publisher from Publishing to Nature. It would be interesting to see how many articles list Springer Publishing as the publisher for items on, or list Springer Nature as the publisher for things on

Thanks for your assistance! Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend, As you have probably guessed, this is complicated on multiple levels. .
First of all , for journals it is not usually necessary to specify the name of the publisher even in print citations l. The title is enough 95% of the time, and the usual distinction if it is not is the city of publication, and if more is needed, the dates. There are exceptions, such as when it is necessary to distinguish the publisher to indicate the degree of importance. Usually that's not reaally needed, because the name ofthe journal gives that information to those who know thesubject, but itcan be helpful--especially nowadays with predatory publishers who use titles that deliberately sound very similar to those of major journals.
This is different from books, where the name of the publisher is the key independence of reliability, and must always be included. (the place usually not, because most book publishers cooperate in several countries--it's only really need for ones that will not be recognized.. There are two questions --who actually published it, and what form of the name to use.
When one does give the name, a person is supposed to cite is what is on the item they actually use; this is not necessarily what will be on a formal record, nor will it necessarily correspond to the actual facts of production. In traditional publications, the copyeditor normalizes the citations according to house style, and what they will do with the publisher field varies--each firm has its own conventions. What you are suggesting is that we normalize it similarly. The copyeditor, or ourselves, would necessarily depend upon the library cataloging, but library cataloging has its own conventions, and these have changed radically over time and differ between countries , and do not except for rare books even attempt to be an exact record--in practice, for books, they copy what is on the item in front of them. For journals, title changes and publisher changes are common, and for both the rules are extremely complicated, being designed to cover all possible situations, and have changed with time, and vary with countries. For example, the 19th century practice was the opposite of today, to give the place always, but often not the publisher.
For the example example you gave, the original ed. and you both made errors. The original ed. didn't realize this was not the main Springer, but a separate and less important company. You made an error, for the citation in from 2009, and in 2009 there was no such firm as Springer Nature. The OCLC record lists it as Springer, so you need to change it back. [44]. OCLC and LXC doesnot usual between various forms of the corporate name.
For both journals and books, publishers change their names, or change the names of their sub-divisions (usually called imprints).They often merge and sometimes split; when this happens, sometimes the name changing to the firm that purchased another, but sometimes not and sometimes only after a period of years. They sometimes merge partially, when one publisher will sell one of its subdivisions or subject areas to another, and what happens to the name on the item similarly varies. Sometimes one publisher reprints work of another. Sometimes the responsibility for publication is divided between different publishers in all sorts of manners. Sometimes an item has different publishers in different countries. Sometimes the print and online have different publishers. Publishers have divisions i different countries, and sometimes they are in effect the same company and sometimes they are very different, as between OUP and OUP India, and this too can very with time. Often when a book is reprinted after the publisher merges, the name given will be the new publisher, but usually the new name will simply be added along with the new copyright date.
There's a problem with authority. OCLC merges the records for different versions and libraries. LC catalogs what they consider to be the version of record, but many libraries modify their copy of the record. For books other than rare books, different editions are separated, but not different printings. (In US practice, a new edition is where the contents changes, either in the main body of the text or the addition of a preface; a printing is where it doesn't. The practical distinction is whether the number of pages changes. A new copyright date is not necessarily a new ed. , because the use of revised date for each new printing if there is even a trivial difference extends the copyright the publishers will claim.) So if you take out a book from a library or buy it, the publisher on the item may be different from the publisher on the cataloging record, depending on when you or the library bought it. As a further complication, a e-print is usually just a printing variant, but since it is hard to tell, some libraries will list it separately. OCLC tries to distinguish, but in practice they mixit up in a totally irrational and unpredictable way.
Sometime an author (WP or conventional) will actually have seen the item, sometime they will copy the citation from that given in another publication; sometimes (especially in WP) they will copy it from a database. Sometimes they will have seen one form of the item, but copy the citation given in a database or catalog for a different form. Sometimes the version they have seen is an illegitimate republication that should not ordinarily be cited, but for which a genuine version is available. Sometimes they see a translation and cite the original, or do just the opposite. Often in WP they fill in the cite form wrong, listing a publisher as author , or a reprinter as publisher, or omitting one or another. Sometimes the WP rules even require that we cite an unauthentic version, such as an open access preprint, rather than the paywalled version of record.
The most important thing we need to fix in WP is to add online or print when only one is given, and to link to both the publishers version and , if available, a open access version. I believe there is in fact a project running to add the open access links. Correcting other variations, is something that affects not individual records, but all of the various WPs, and I suggest is something best left to Wikidata. At the moment, I think they are just working on journals, bjt anyone could add or elaborate a record for a book. I do not myself usually doit, for it will be most efficient as an organized exercise. In the past , I would not personally work with Wikidata, because I considered their standards too low. Now, their goals at least are higher, and the WD people now appreciate the bibliographic and semantic ambiguities. Just like WP is a long term project, so is WD., and though I would possibly now be able to cooperate with them, I am quite occupied enough here. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(political editing)Edit

... We have to be mindful of the consequences of treating political article talk pages as free speech zones in service of righting great wrongs. If the goal of an encyclopedia is to contain the sum of all human knowledge, proportionally reflecting reliable sources, then I see this approach as being highly detrimental to that purpose. - MrX 🖋 12:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It is acceptable for an editor to challenge sources, even the NYT, or to argue for the use of even such sources as Breitbart. What is not acceptable to be a nuisance about it,. It is not acceptable to refuse to accept consensus, even if you are certain the consensus is wrong. I have read all the diffs, and what I actually think of the sources myself is not to the point here--I have said all of that in more detail at various times at WP:RSN and elsewhere, but it's a separate matter.


I have discussed the need for absolutely neutral leads repeatedly, from my first years here, using the example that we need not call Stalin a tyrant. We say what he did, and the reader will draw the conclusions. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
But I certainly agree with your last paragraph, that we should not treat article talk pages as zones for political debate. She is not the only one who has done that. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

News release tagEdit

Dear DGG: You put a news release tag on Ned Holstein. Could you expand on your rationale? As a scientist, my biography articles are mostly about other scientists (people I have never met or dead), describing their education, a synthesis of their research, their media appearances, together with a list of selected publications; trying to do so in a stimulating, friendly and positive manner. This is about an activist though, so it is a little different than what I normally do. I tried to describe his education, his organizational affiliations, a synthesis of the advocacy arguments he uses, and his media appearances, together with a list of selected publications. How could I do this better? I want to use the sources to relay the content and logic of the advocacy, which is the core of the notability and corresponding to the research done by a scientist. To simply create a dry tally of events, activities and personal anecdotes that some Wikipedia biographies have is less informative for the reader. Any suggestions on how to move forward on these types of activist biographies? Martinogk (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. WP is not a place to do advocacy. It's an encyclopedia, and you used the same words I sometimes do in advising people how to write here: encyclopedias are inherently dry and dull. They can also be fascinating, as a framework to find out a little about a great many things. To find out a great deal, that's why we have references. But in a more positive way, the method of handling people who are known for their advocacy is to say what others have said about it, and to say it briefly, and do as much as possible of it by implication, giving titles of works and the like. (I also notice that at least half of the sources given for "Media Interviews" merely include him in a small part of a long general story; including these gives a promotional effect--and also affects notability.) The article is not supposed to be built up of quotations from his works, but by describing them. The place to use quotations, is where there is something distinctive, or where the exact wording matters. The rule for promotionalism in general ,is that we say not what the person would want others to know about him, but what others might want to know. It must be based not on his work, on what is said about his work, and there are unfavorable ones also, they must be included. It should not be written to give the impression that everyone would naturally agree-- I notice that some of the coverage of him, and some of the places where he has published, are publications that are generally considered not to be reliable sources, with WorldNet Daily as the most notorious; that he would choose to publish there implies that some aspects of his work may not be as uncontroversial as they sound.
And I can't help noticing that some of this affects some of your other articles, both those specifically on advocacy groups for shared parenting, and those on scientists who are associated with that movement. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

  Guideline and policy news


  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp