User talk:DGG/Archive 136 May 2018

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

Do not add comments here; this is an archive of earlier comments

---

Please comment on Talk:Dana Loesch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dana Loesch. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Journey into Night

The article's talk page at Draft talk:Journey into Night needs to be moved also, to Talk:Journey into Night. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Recime

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

[504873#Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#April 2018|Rjd0060]]

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

}}

OberRanks

Hi. Re this, I'm fine with your unblock, but I just wanted to say that this editor did fabricate refs to sources that don't exist and then did lie about it repeatedly. It's all in the histories. I could lead you through it but at this point it's water under the bridge, I hope. I didn't bring these things up to get him in trouble but to make sure that his representations to others were taken cautiously. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

DGG, see my response here [1]. I think it would be best if Dr. F. simply took my talk page off his watch list, and adhered to WP:STICK. I plan to have absolutely no further contact with this user. Thank you for your help with this situation. -O.R.^Comms 17:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This editor hopes that his past conduct will never come up in discussion ever again. I won't abide by that. But like I said, this is hopefully water under the bridge. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

DGG, I'll put it on the record here that I strongly object to your unilateral unblock, and I'm shocked you did this without at least the obligatory consultation – a clear breach of admin policy on your part. You said you "simply do not see" the lying. That's worrysome. It means you are either an exceptionally gullible individual, or, more likely, you didn't do you homework looking at the evidence. The evidence of lies, both before the block and after, including right into his unblock requests, is incontrovertible, as is the fact that this is a piece of recidivism, of the same kind of disruptive behaviour that previously got him sanctioned at Arbcom. Given his history, your assertion that "3 or 4 copyvios spread out of 11 years" is "not a particularly terrible record" is bizarre. You could have said this about some confused newbie, but for an experienced editor like this, obviously, there is only one count of copyvios that is "not terrible", and that is: precisely zero. – Finally, I also take offense at your description of me as an editor "quarreling" with this person. As you should have realized, I have never interacted with him in anything but a legitimate administrative capacity, and, needless to say, I will continue to do so whenever I choose. Your description comes quite close to a veiled insinuation of admin misconduct on my part, which I do not take lightly to. You'd better either retract it, or substantiate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The matter had been discussed sufficiently on the talk page that I saw no point in asking you again. I try to avoid charged words , and , looking back, I should have said just "I think the block is excessive, and I'm reducing it to time served." DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Evading an answer. Pathetic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Centro Universitário da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro
• Draft:Eleanor Herman
• Draft:Lower East Preservation Initiative

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

I've never in fact opened a sockpuppet investigation, but I have strong reason to believe that Tarc (talk · contribs) has returned under a different user name. I am not completely familiar with the process, I don't know if it is proper to ping the editor in question, but the editor recently attacked RoySmith (talk · contribs), I left a message on his talk page so you can see who the editor in question is. Both Tarc and the possible sock have posted heavily on similar pages which include Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the controversy pages involving them. The two editors appear to have strong ties though they have on occasion posted on each others page. They are both extremely aggressive and make similar attacks, the behavior checks out. I don't want to start mass chaos on your page by pinging the active editor, but I was wondering if you can run a user check or whatever the process may be. If you request me list the second user name, I can, but pinging the editor would result in a mess. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hey David, you should really do something about your paranoid sidekick here. Dave Dial (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to point out a few other anomalies, Dave Dial claims to be an older gentlemen possibly 50+ interested in the NBA particularly the Detroit Pistons, yet the editor has never edited NBA nor Detroit Pistons. I've never seen this in someone interested in a subject not edit pages they feel strongly about. The editor uses the term "bro culture" and expresses extreme animosity toward white men both seem contradictory toward his/her profile description. The type of attack this editor uses matches the style Tarc uses. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey asshat, stop making stupid accusations about me, before I take you to ANI. SPI is that way, if you want to embarrass yourself further. Dave Dial (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Valoem. the place for this is either spi or ani. If something needs to be done quietly, this is one of the least suitable pages in WP to talk about it. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ascot–Guildford line

Can you close the WP:DRV? Looks like all the usual admins who close DRVs have participated in the discussion. Oh can you also delete the current User:Valoem/Denise Donnelly and restore Denise Donnelly with full history intact to my userspace? I think there may be a better version someone where in the past. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I closed the Del Rev -- I hope the script worked right--I do not think I ever used it before. I cannot identify the earlier edit history, King of Hearts might be able to, since he did the deletions. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool breakdown by U. of North Texas's George Yancey of "willingness of academic philosophers to hire [various groups]"

Nothing new here. But still interesting.

>>>>>I did this quick breakdown of some of the different groups and the willingness of academic philosophers to hire them. Note that their unwillingness to hire them may be slight or may be strong. This is only the percentage that have an unwillingness to hire someone because they are a member of this group. I do not have the time right now to do a breakdown by being slightly, moderately or strongly more unwilling to hire from that group but do not want to overestimate the degree of rejection either.--- Dr. Yancey<<<<<

http://dailynous.com/2018/04/10/philosophers-less-willing-hire/

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Esther Okjoo Shin
• Draft:Name necklace
• Draft:Perry Hall Primary School
• Draft:Salina Vortex
• Draft:Shokudaikiri Mitsutada
• Draft:Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Mehdi Ghasemi

I am hesitant to PROD this article, but I don't think it meets WP:AUTHOR but it might meet WP:PROF. I don't believe that the claims of having innovated Noveramatry makes him notable. His fiction is available only as self-published on-demand print. You are more qualified than I am to judge his notability based on his scholarly publications. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The page has since been sent to Draft:Mehdi Ghasemi by another patroller. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Help us design granular blocks!

Hello :-) The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation will start building these granular blocking tools in a few weeks and we've asked WMF designer Alex Hollender to help us make some wireframes so the tools are intuitive to MediaWiki users.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T190350

We have a first draft of how we think this tool should work. You can read the full proposed implementation here but here are the significant parts:

• Granular blocks (page, category, namespace, and file uploading) will be built on top of Special:Block. These blocks will function as if they were regular blocks and allow for the same options, but only take effect on specific pages.
• We will add a new checkbox for "Block this user from the whole site" which will be checked by default. When it is unchecked the admin will be able to specify which pages, categories, and/or namespaces the user should be blocked from editing.
• Granular blocks can be combined and/or overlap. (For example, a user could be simultaneously blocked from editing the articles Rain, Thunder, Lightning, and all pages inside the Category:Weather.)
• Only one block is set at a time, to adjust what the user is blocked from the administrator would have to modify the existing block.
• Block logs should display information about the granular block
• When a blocked user attempts to edit an applicable page, they should see a block warning message which include information on their block (reason, expiration, what they are blocked from, etc.)
• If a category is provided, the blocked user cannot edit either the category page itself and all pages within the category.
• If the File: namespace is blocked, the user should not be allowed to upload files.

We like this direction because it builds on top of the existing block system, both a technical and usability wise. Before we get too far along with designs and development we'd like to hear from you about our prosposal:

1. What do you think of the proposed implementation?
2. We believe this should be an expansion of Special:Block, but it has been suggested that this be a new special page. What are your thoughts?
3. Should uploading files be combined with a File namespace block, or as a separate option? (For example, if combined, when a user is blocked from the File namespace, they would neither be able to edit any existing pages in the File namespace nor upload new files.)
4. Should there be a maximum number of things to be blocked from? Or should we leave it up to admin discretion?

We appreciate your feedback on this project's talk page or by email. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My poem is bad but my apology for the bad links is sincere!

Roses are red,
Good message links are blue,
My proofreading stinks,
So here's a good link for you SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

.

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Houston Foresight Program
• Draft:Reza Gouran
• Draft:Shearwater International

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 10 May 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)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Amit Goswami
• Draft:Robert Schotter

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Genesis Mining

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 OAKS222

• OAKS222 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Charles Rudolf Legéndy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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)

prods

FYI, libraries being targeted for prod by rusf10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.253.97.170 (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

they should have been merged to the library system or locality. I marked them appropriately. If there are more, please let me know.

Deleted history

Given your sentiment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SeosiWrestling, I was wondering if you would not mind using your administrator glasses on my behalf to take a look at the deleted history of User:RenegadeMinds/Huntercoin, User:0x0F/Datacoin, and Draft:Paraduin. I recently "declined" ~20 clearly inapplicable speedy deletion requests by the user who made these three. I am wondering if perhaps they slipped through the cracks. However, G4 does have the vague "but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy" clause. If you do not mind looking, what do you think in regard to the appropriateness of those deletions? Warmest Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not consider them appropriate. The first two should go back to draft space, but the third, a particularly absurd so-called micronation, might perhaps be considered for speedy as nonsense. I am not sure about the best approach for doing this. And I am not at all sure about the more important problem, finding the best strategy to prevent similar. DGG ( talk ) 14:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Checking further, I am working on the first two. I do not consider the 3rd has any imaginal potential. A particularly absurd so-called micronation. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Restored and redirected National Film Award for Kannada Best Feature Film

As a head's up, I've undone your deletion of National Film Award for Kannada Best Feature Film under WP:CSD#A10. It doesn't seem to add much, but as it was created through AfC in 2012, it wasn't recently created. It seems a reasonable enough redirect, so I've done that as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the redirect unnecessary, but nto worth arguing about. That afc should have accepted the article shows the problems with afc. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but you of all people should know that AFC in 2012 was an entirely different beast to the AFC of the last few years. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You know...

You are a much nicer person than I am. Well done. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You might be interested in the actual statute at issue: [2]. It is, IMO, out of date. I have had to apply for a Norwich Pharmacal order before now, and in the application I had to show evidence that the person had likely committed an offence. This was one of the two for which I provided evidence, the other was Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 [3]. Once I had my NPO and had proof of the person's identity, they immediately stopped, so I never had to press either charge. However, I did read a ton of material on tort law including the unlamented libel laws, now thankfully replaced with something far better in the Defamation Act 2013. Anyway, as a result of all this I am slightly less fundamentalist about free speech than I was, having lived through a nutter posting wank fantasies about murdering my children. And this wasn't even a racist - he was a fundamentalist anti speed enforcement zealot. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've learned a few things myself from being at arb com. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Predictably: Woman who posted Holocaust denial songs to YouTube convicted. Sentencing next month. Her friend Jez Turner is already in jail. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Editing Lookout (company) page

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)

Deleted history

Given your sentiment at [[4]], I was wondering if you would not mind using your administrator glasses on my behalf to take a look at the deleted history. Please let me know where did I go wrong and I want to improve the page as per wiki rules and regulations. Your support would be greatly appreciated. Abdulwahidmalek (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC) You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements , not just a list of roles. If her work is important, it wil have been reviewed. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

09:08:22, 21 May 2018 review of submission by Terecam

• Terecam (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sinnaps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Which changes exactly can i do to make me sure that you can publish the article? I will try to change it. Thank you very much, Regards Teresa Terecam (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements Of the ones in the draft, the only possible one is the first, which is a 3rd party review, but it's completely not critical review which could have been and probably was copied from a press release. The others are either advertisements/press releases, or written by the company, or are general articles just mentioning it. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

01:33:57, 22 May 2018 review of submission by OAKS222

• OAKS222 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Charles Rudolf Legéndy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

Sara Brajovic

Hello, Should I contact you here or on the "Articles for deletion" page? My answer regarding your Brajovic comment can be found at the following link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Brajovic. Thanks for your time Abonzz (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Abonzz, you were correct in posting on the deletion discussion page. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Copyvio recommendations for New Pages Feed

Hi DGG -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a WMF product manager working on an improvement to the Articles for Creation process. I think you've commented on this effort a couple times, but I wanted to reach out directly to get your feedback on some of the latest open questions. Our current plan is to add AfC drafts to the New Pages Feed, and to score all pages in the feed with copyvio and quality scores. The idea is that this will help both AfC and NPP reviewers prioritize pages that need attention soonest. Adding copyvio indications to all pages in the feed is presenting unexpected technical challenges, and the WMF engineers could definitely use opinions from people who are experienced with copyvio. It would be a big help to our effort if you could take a look at my most recent project update and leave any thoughts on the talk page. In addition to the copyvio parts, we would also definitely value your thoughts on the project as a whole. Thank you! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

My general view depends on the way it is set up, and I like the new basic arrangement : NPP and AFC are two separate processes, and setting it up as a toggle to choose one or the other is practical way of dealing with it; the reviewer one can concentrate on one process at a time, and avoid confusion from the different standards.

I will look at the details tomorrow and give some comments. But a general comment is that these scores have to be seen as a guide, and as a way of avoiding gross error, not as substitutes for judgment and knowledge of actual practice. The standard for acceptance at AfC is what is likely to pass AfD, not what ought to pass AfD. For NPP too, the standards are what the community currently thinks they are, not what the rules say they are supposed to be. Advice to users has to follow the consensus standard, not try to change it.

Personally, I can adjust to patrolling using whatever is available --I do not expect everything to match my own idiosyncratic pattern. The main thing I am concerned about is to make sure we do not lose important features (what that primarily means to me is that I need to be able to continue to use Special:New Pages) DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: thank you for the initial thoughts -- and I'm looking forward to your further comments, particularly around copyvio.

To address what you wrote: I'm glad to hear that the changes make good sense at a high level. I totally understand the point about using the scores as a guide and not a substitute for human judgment. As we add things to the interface, we'll be careful to write the language such that it's clear that, for instance, a page is "likely B-class", as opposed to just "B-class". And in terms of the accompanying documentation for how to use the new features, I'm hoping the reviewing community (as opposed to the WMF team) leads the way on the language there, so that no consensus standards are changed. In general, we're going to be careful to only add to the New Pages Feed, and not to remove anything or change peoples' existing workflows. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Francoism in Catalonia

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

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

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving a Draft to Mainspace for Purpose of Deletion

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)

I've tried to explain there is good reasons to move to main to seek deletion before. Please share your thought on this.

Yes, User:Legacypac and User:DGG. I have seen that you, Legacypac, have been a tilt at windmills for two years to the effect that drafts should sometimes be moved into article space to be deleted (as opposed to being moved into article space because they are article-ready, on which we all agree). I would be interested in any supporting opinion. It might not persuade me, but I plan to listen and consider.

I don't enjoy being three inches from ArbComm to desysop an Admin Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Removal_from_the_list after specifically discussing removing the threat of sanctions against AfC reviewers Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/AfC_Process_Improvement_May_2018#Remove_the_threat_of_sanctions and being told by the same Admin that was not a problem. I post this just for context because Robert brought it up. Please do not share your thought on this because this may yet end up at ArbComm someday. Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see that mistakes were made, including by User:Primefac, who then reversed their mistake. I see that you, User:Legacypac, are talking about possibly asking ArbCom to desysop an admin. Do you mean Primefac? What for? Did I miss the new policy that states that admins must be perfect, and that admins who make mistakes and admit to them must be desysopped? I wouldn't advise Legacypac requesting an ArbCom case, because their own conduct, including a two-year tilt at windmills to clean up draft space by moving crud to anywhere including article space, might be considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Not the time or place to discuss this. Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I consider this a perfectly good place for a discussion on this or any other aspect of AfC.

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 Thoughts

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)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Proposed "Liberty" Amendment to the United States Constitution

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Obits..

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 Blades^Godric 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)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Devere Allen
• Draft:Florida Geological Survey
• Draft:Kern Wildenthal
• Draft:Orland E. Esval
• Draft:Simon Weller
• Draft:The Foundation Review
• Draft:Whip Bow

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Obits..

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 Blades^Godric 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)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Devere Allen
• Draft:Florida Geological Survey
• Draft:Kern Wildenthal
• Draft:Orland E. Esval
• Draft:Simon Weller
• Draft:The Foundation Review
• Draft:Whip Bow

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018

Facto Post – Issue 12 – 28 May 2018 ScienceSource funded The Wikimedia Foundation announced full funding of the ScienceSource grant proposal from ContentMine on May 18. See the ScienceSource Twitter announcement and 60 second video. A medical canon? The proposal includes downloading 30,000 open access papers, aiming (roughly speaking) to create a baseline for medical referencing on Wikipedia. It leaves open the question of how these are to be chosen. The basic criteria of WP:MEDRS include a concentration on secondary literature. Attention has to be given to the long tail of diseases that receive less current research. The MEDRS guideline supposes that edge cases will have to be handled, and the premature exclusion of publications that would be in those marginal positions would reduce the value of the collection. Prophylaxis misses the point that gate-keeping will be done by an algorithm. Two well-known but rather different areas where such considerations apply are tropical diseases and alternative medicine. There are also a number of potential downloading troubles, and these were mentioned in Issue 11. There is likely to be a gap, even with the guideline, between conditions taken to be necessary but not sufficient, and conditions sufficient but not necessary, for candidate papers to be included. With around 10,000 recognised medical conditions in standard lists, being comprehensive is demanding. With all of these aspects of the task, ScienceSource will seek community help. Links OpenRefine logo, courtesy of Google d:Wikidata:Lexicographical data, Wikidata's multi-lingual dictionary project gets going Ordia tool, a basic search interface for Wikidata lexemes and forms OpenRefine tool 3.0, May update allows wrangling of tabular information into Wikidata d:Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians pushes ahead with data modelling and imports #1Lib1Ref Returns for a Second Time in 2018, IFLA blogpost 25 May 2018, second chance this year to participate in referencing Wikipedia 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. ScienceSource pages will be announced there, and in this mass message. {

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help so far

Hi, firstly many thinks for taking the time to look over the Eve Poole page. It’s my first one and quite a learning curve but I’m enjoying it and hoping to do more in the future. I hope I’m doing the right thing here (I'm new to Talking!), I added some discussion points to the Eve Poole Talk page and I would really appreciate some advice. Please tell me if I'm not doing the right thing. KellysHero01 (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made some specific comments on the article talk page. But 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 fo 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.

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)

(4) In dealing with an author, it is often helpful to organize the description of their work around their successive major books.

Authority control

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 doesno harm. If they do not agree, it provides links to the data for resolving the disagreement. I se the discussion mentioned thepossibility thatt thesecould be used for search terms, but not routinely display--that seems a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits (May 18 and beyond) to "Draft: Charles Rudolf Legéndy" OAKS222 (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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) 01:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)