User talk:DGG/Archive 174 Jul. 2021

                                       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

Histories of East, Central, and Southern Africa 2

DGG, I have reached out a couple of times since you last responded on May 16th at User talk:DGG#Histories of Central, East, and Southern Africa, where you indicated that it might take several days for you to be able to follow-up with me and requested that I please be patient since you apparently had other matters to attend to as well. As a result, I tried to periodically follow-up with you on it roughly a week later, then a month later, and now, a week after that.

I am not sure if I have somehow unknowingly offended you, or if you may have been so busy, with the apparent accumulation of messages, other requests on your page, and possibly more, that you simply had forgotten about my initial request and did not notice my subsequent contacts. If I have somehow unknowingly offended you, I am sorry for that; it certainly was not intended. If you have simply forgotten about it, and did not notice my subsequent contacts, I have created this newer section in hope that it might be easier for you to notice it. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please respond and follow-up with me on this matter.

Initially, per some of your apparently positive remarks at User talk:Daniel Power of God#Very good work, you seemed to find some agreement with these regional history pages being created and seemed to indicate that there was some merit in their creation since other regions of the world already had similar coverage. You had also seemed to indicate a willingness to move them into the mainspace. If you would please undelete them and move them into the mainspace, I would greatly appreciate that. I am willing to work with you, as well as others, to address potential concerns about Draft:History of Central Africa, Draft:History of East Africa, and Draft:History of Southern Africa and their merit as potentially being standalone articles in the mainspace. I also appreciate any support you are willing to give. I would also make note that these drafts do contain prose and sources – which apparently meet WP:Reliable sources – that are not presently found in their mainspace counterparts of Central Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa, such as sections on regional genetic histories and regional archaeological site/culture timelines, which would seem to provide an additional unique and informative value for the reader. My underlying intention has been to try to do things properly (e.g., WP:Core content policies, WP:Etiquette), and to add greater value and more comprehensive coverage of these topics as well as related topics.

I hope all is well with you and hope to hear from you soon. Thanks again. Daniel Power of God (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I have not forgotten; I simply have not gotten to it yet. I don't mind being reminded--I need reminders. What I will do tomorrow is restore them as drafts and look at them. What they will need to become separate stand-alone articles is 1) to have considerably more detail than the corresponding section in the main article; it is also necessary that the main article not be so long that it could not accommodate the additional material. After I have a chance to look, I'll let you know my advice. There's no point moving them to mainspace if they are not going to survive there, and I have to judge by what the community would be expected to do, not what I personally might prefer. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, DGG. Thanks for your willingness to restore the drafts. I look forward to your feedback and hope to hear from you soon regarding those restored drafts. Daniel Power of God (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about using "draft categories" versus ":"

On the draft I am working on for Draft:Bette Otto-Bliesner, you put colons before the categories on the page. I had the categories within draft categories, which I thought was a means to indicate they were drafts and functionally would be the same as using the colons. From the guidance here ([1], I thought [[:Category:XX]] was the same as {{draft categories| [[Category:XX]]}}. Have I misunderstood the guidance here? DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

uyes, your way was sufficient and might have been better. . DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft: AFC rejection non-notable (Landy

Hello DGG,

Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Landy_Francis_Eng

I understand the above AFC request was reviewed and declined on grounds of notability. I just wanted to try and understand why more specifically and if more can be done to fix this.

In the current article AFC, most sources are from reliable, secondary sources including ‘The Straits Times’- Singapore’s premier broadsheet national newspaper (as would NYT be to New York), and it’s business focused equivalents like Singapore’s ‘Business Times’. Additional sources include the Los Angles Times and San Francisco Examiner— major national broadsheet papers, and USA Today. Typically, getting a full page column in the Straits Times, being a CNBC anchor and politician seems to be notable, but I think I may not be understanding wiki guidelines properly here. I presumed that the international offices held for Californian legislative branch and congress run against Nancy Pelosi also added to the subjects notability (albeit in an older time back in the 1980s). Would such things come under the notability for WP:Politician?

“Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[13]”

I understand that perhaps this was the case since the subject material is not recent (covers late 1980s-early 2000s) and articles are not available online freely however I had provided scans of all reference newspaper articles on the subject in the talk page as a note kn article creation (not sure if there is a better way to do this for newspaper articles that are older than online free archives). The link is pasted here again: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zh4ht9dFnimGAnd_ELdFawZc7SwDKT5A?usp=sharing

Once again, I am really not sure about wiki guidelines so I am just reaching out for help in understanding the ‘why’ better so that i can resubmit or delete the article as per guidelines. Looking forward to your response on this matter, thank you so much! Auratrinty (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

response in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC) �

Hi DGG, Just a kind follow up in case it slipped through.

Auratrinty Even if the urls are behind paywalls, give them if you can find them. If you're citing the print editions, give the page numbers. I will then let someone else judge. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Auratrinty (talk)

Hi DGG, thank you for the feedback and follow-up steps. I have followed your advice and added page numbers and reference links to the Singapore national library newspaper archives where available. These don't include the full article but they include the title headers for each article with a possible 2-3 lines of text. The source for Los Angeles Times (citation -[2]) and Business Standard (citation -[5]) are freely available online on the official newspaper websites by following the citation links. This covers the situation for citations [1]-[7] which represent about 80-90% of the article content. Citations [9]-[12] are older and from Californian newspapers which are only available on physical archive at the library of Congress. I was able to cite page numbers for [10] and [11] but not for [9] and [12].

All of the articles, as scanned copies in full text, are once again available on the google drive link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dxPwJu3bEVCxWxmQF1JgwE-QIeYkhh6A/view?usp=sharing)

I additionally reviewed and rewrote the introduction to be expanded to cover more of the content. These are all up for editor review and can be changed if the article is at least found to be notable enough.

Finally, I have included an note on all of the above on the Draft articles 'Talk' page.

Thank you once again for the advice. I am happy to leave the rest of this to the Wiki team to deal with as per the official guidelines.

Just a quick question to finish: Should I click on resubmit or would you be reviewing or assigning another reviewer manually? And is there any way for the later editor to follow this discussion on your talk page?

---

Hi DGG,

Thank you so much for reviewing all of the sources and referencing the talk page on the draft. I sincerely apologize for all of the extra work that you had to do to review this. I mentioned this somewhere to scope_creep earlier but I am not being paid to do this, but it has turned up as part of an unpaid internship with a school alumni and felt obliged to see the project through once it had been accepted. As scope_creep mentioned an earlier article draft was deleted due to being promotional and not having COI declaration thus for the new one, the proposed AfC route was taken so that wiki admins can make the decision to keep/delete this and so that wiki admins could ensure that article is representative of the sources and factual, albeit only to the extent that the sources are only coming from the subject, and due to the age of the sources, this could only be the case as it would be on any self-initiated article. I must again sincerely apologize. I knew it was promotional in nature soon after going into a bio project, with turned out to be a wikibio. I wish I had the courage and decision making principle to have called this out and walked away very early on but perhaps did not do so on the basis of the possibility of a future reward from networking etc. Please don't get the wrong idea: nothing to do with the subject. Regardless of the subject and what was being said, I could have acted firmly on principle but didn't. I am sorry that as a consequence of my decisions or lack of thereof, you and the community have had to deal with more all the additional work and put your attention into something that was perhaps not to your liking, and will.

However, all in all, I am happy with the outcome: You have given it a fair review and judgement. This is for the best of the community. Thank you. --Auratrinty (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment

Hey, David,

I was just looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size and noticed that there has been more discussion on your user talk page than there has been on Talk:Donald Trump! I don't know how you manage all of the constant messaging and requests for help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Question at on Bette Otto-Bliesner

On the page I was working on for Bette Otto-Bliesner, you commented "hundreds of people contributed to the IPCC report. See WP:PROF for our requirements."

In response, I noted the following about her notability: "In addition to her position as one of the lead authors of the two IPCC chapter (she is not just a contributor), she meets criteria #3 of WP:PROF because she is a fellow of two scholarly societies (the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society). I am about to move her page to the mainspace, so I am going to remove the comment. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I responded at length at the teahouse, where you asked about this --permanent link: [2]. I worked and thought about this for several days, only to find you had moved the draft without waiting for my response.

I did decide that Fellow AGS is sufficient for notability, and I am prepared to defend it if challenged; I will need to check further about Fellow AMS.

I clarified the wording three statements in the article: The Nobel prize was for the entire multi-year sequence of reports, not the two chapters where she was a lead author. For the chapter in the 2007 report, she was not the sole lead author but one of the 16 lead authors. For the chapter in the 2013 report, she was one of the 17 lead authors. . I knew from prior reading of these reports that there were many lead authors, but I went back to the sources and found the numbers.

Your work here is very impressive--you are doing things right, to start with the top women in the profession. For future reference, most editors working on science bios here think it not our style to cite every paper of the subject, just one key paper to indicate each major field. Wikipedia is not for publishing CVs. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for moving ahead without waiting. I will keep these comments in mind. Thanks for all the insight into the process. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Secretlab

Hey DGG, I thought I'd let you know that I've recreated Secretlab, since I saw that you previously nominated it for deletion. However, a user has perplexingly tagged it for speedy deletion under G4, when obviously that cannot be the case since I do not have access to the deleted version of the article. I am confident that the subject itself is notable, and that the article was previously deleted for promotional/presentational/G11-ish reasons. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I shall look in a few days. please be patient. DGG ( talk ) 07

42, 1 July 2021 (UTC) �

Should I nominate this article for deletion? It seems very promotional.

Although I won't be editing autism biographies too much, the article govy seems to be a major exception since it is highly WP:PROMO. I looked at the sources and saw that most of them don't work, or link to shops and art galleries that feature her work. I searched for reliable sources under her various names and couldn't find much, except for a few short reviews in various small websites. Also, see Talk:Govy for details of my brief analysis. Yleventa2 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If her first design piece was in the MOMA store, she's probably notable. I think it usually means the object is in their permanent collection. I'll check. It'll. take a few days. �

Okay, I will wait. Additionally, I checked the MOMA links, and see no mention of the items on there. Yleventa2 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft?

Hi. This still has draft in its name? Maybe someone can figure out what is wrong here. Tx. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:W._Arthur_Cunningham --2603:7000:2143:8500:35BA:FB88:EBFD:E637 (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of sources

Hi DGG please can you look at this discussion [3]. It is a fork of a discussion started by Gtoffoletto on the same talk page [4], in which you participated. As I pointed out in the first part of the discussion here [5], the preprint was covered by Science Magazine, Nature Magazine, USA TODAY, The Daily Telegraph, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, South China Morning Post, Business Insider and El País, and they unanimously report its findings as prima facie evidence of the Chinese Government’s gag order on Chinese Scientists in effect. Now we have a few editors WP:MISINTERPRETING these sources, downplaying the deletion of the sequence data, and claiming - falsely - that the data was subsequently republished, and that we should therefore delete our coverage of this story - and indeed the entire Independent investigations section. How does one deal with such behavior without escalating tensions? CutePeach (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not concerned in the details, but it what we cover and why, and the effect of prejudice on OR. I made what I consider a suitable comment: the question what the actual origin may prove to be , should be totally irrelevant to how we cover this topic I'll now give my opinion, since it's my talk p. and I can say what I would not say elsewhere. . Those who think the lab leak hypothesis is not worth covering as a serious theory, and not merely Fringe, are at best ignorant of our principles, and at worst so impervious to reason and so opposed the our foundational values of OR and NPOV that they do not belong in the encyclopedia . Rather than try to remove them, however justified that may be, i think the best course is a redefinition of FRINGE., for there will always be future ignoramuses, and we need to protect against them. Perhaps in 06 we needed to protect against the followers of such utter nonsense as scientology, but now we need to protect against the self-righteously orthodox.

(I've responded to you, but I do not wish to carry on this discussion here--the need to continue do so is so greatly discouraging that it's interfering with the other work that I need to do here.) DGG ( talk ) 10:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I just saw your reply now. I think this lab leak discussion is becoming too tedious and those editors trying to censor it are just digging themselves deeper into a hole. I am going to take some time off from it and create an article on the DuPont PFOA scandal because I’ve seen there isn’t a page on it yet and it deserves one. CutePeach (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel the same way. I'm not going to really engage in it, but it remains a useful warning of how NPOV can be perverted. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I just stumbled across this discussion. @CutePeach: You might find it useful to know that DGG, myself, and a few other users have been discussing possibly requesting an arbitration case about both this issue, and a very similar issue that exists on articles related to race and intelligence. The discussion about this idea is here: [6] The problem in both topics seems to be that WP:FRINGE is being used as a justification for violating other Wikipedia policies. But we haven't decided yet how an arbitration request about this issue should be structured, so your feedback in that discussion would be valuable.Gardenofaleph (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Gardenofaleph, I was going to ask DGG about the motion to clarify WP:FRINGE, as he talked about it in a recent post on COVID-19 origins. I have seen WP:FRINGE being misapplied to the topic area of COVID-19 origins for a while now. We have more data on the Far side of the Moon than the origins of this virus, yet some editors have been very keen to class the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis as "fringe", while admitting that Wikipedia’s definition departs from Wiktionary's definition. This is in part a Kuhnian problem, as the scientific consensus has yet to form, but it is also in part a behavioral problem, as some editors are trying to put some scientific opinions as facts and overstate them as scientific consensus statements.

In a recent ANI filed against me on this topic [7], I gave the examples of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, where the Russian and Malaysian governments didn’t give their full cooperation to investigators, which [should] changes the application of WP:FRINGE to the topic. Would we have rushed to claim a "consensus" on what happened within a year or two of Flight 370 going down, even though the flight recorder and debris weren't recovered? Five years have passed now, the flight recorder still hasn’t been recovered, and there are very compelling reasons to believe a certain member of the crew was responsible - possibly as a suicide - and that the [former] Malaysian government attempted to cover it up [8] [9].

I don’t know as much about R&I as I do about COVID-19 origins and Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, but I have been watching Stonkaments’s efforts on the Nicholas Wade talk page for a while and I recognise the behavior of some of the editors countering him there. I find it quite distasteful in how Wade’s bio launches straight into an assault on his book before even giving the reader an idea of what's inside. If aliens visit our planet in 80 million years from now and dig up our frozen (or burnt) remains from this epoch, they'll be quite unimpressed when they get to that page. CutePeach (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

please see the note at the top of this page--. I cannot do much here at the moment. I need a few days to think about this. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Gordon Henry Newstead article

I've rewritten the article and pushed it forward. It's still mainly tied to the Australian Dictionary of Biography but at least it's not in resume format anymore. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I added two also. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:2021 New York City Democratic mayoral primary

Why was this deleted? This draft was created due to a proposed split, which would be moved to main space if we reached consensus. Muhibm0307 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Muhibm0307, ok, restored. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Muhibm0307 (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

and the weirdest election Ive ever voted in--even for NYC. I see at least that its almost entirely decided. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Job for you

I wonder whether you could clean up Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources. I think there's a good point to be made in there, but it's got some problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I can work on it, yes, but I will add or emphasise the concepts of "reliable about some things" , "relative reliability" , "best available sources", "how to use untrustworthy sources," and the concept that keeps coming up at undeclared paid editors, that "even the best sources have parts that are unreliable" and perhaps a section of examples that are otherwise than they seem at first.

It will need several rounds, and I know I can count on you to correct anything I write that is inappropriately provocative. I may not get a chance until Sunday., but I will try to at least add the section headings I've mentioned.

I think you and I both want something that will have general agreement , to prevent or a least settle a dispute , not something someone can use on any one side of an argument. (for example, I would remove or decrease the AP examples). DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll be happy to see what you do with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello DGG:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions

Hi, David,

Just an FYI, there was an updated message to Wikipedia:Bot requests#Help needed from ProcrastinatingReader that he did a work-around so that the category should be refilled on a weekly basis now. It sounded like it isn't the best, permanent solution to the problem but the category shouldn't fall down to 400 drafts any time soon. It's over 3,000 now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

that's very good news, ProcrastinatingReader-- at leeast for the way I work --I'lll be able to keep 3 weeks ahead , �which is a sufficient buffer. Thanks!. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Gaetano Ciancio Article

Thank you for your help the article got approved, however now it has the following comment: "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use". I have made a single article in my life and clearly do not do this professionally. The article is neutral and I have nothing to disclose. Please help me get this tag removed. posted by User:Medkatz om July 11, 2021

I have requested some information about coi on your user talk page. As I explain there, so far from removing the tag, I would not have accepted the article in its present form. I shall either return it Draft or re-edit it. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Perry Marshall AfD

Thank you for your contribution to the AfD discussion. I am sorry that you think my edits so far are POV. That was not my intention. The article clearly still needs work. If you can point me towards RS sources reporting authoritative countervailing views, I will be happy to include them - if you have not the time or inclination to edit the article further yourself. For the record, I think you are mistaken in attributing to Marshall the view that "if I offer a large amount of money and you still can't do it, it has been proven impossible." I am, not aware that he has anywhere suggested that. On the contrary, he is on record as stating that he will "follow the evidence wherever it leads". And you are mistaken in suggesting that he is "against Darwinism"; it is quite clear that he has no argument with that: his dispute is with the Modern Synthesis, and the popular accounts of it by Dawkins, Coyne etc, as well as most school textbooks and general press articles, which emphasise the "random" hypothesis and ignore all these other mechanisms. Also,I would be grateful if you could clarify what you mean by "his theory"; I wasn't aware that he was proposing one. DaveApter (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(not sure why my 'new section' got embedded in your barnstar box. Some wiki editing glitch?). DaveApter (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

DaveApter modified , since I must admit I have not read the book . DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

For recovery of deleted page

Hello DGG, please let me know how to recover deleted Wikipedia page "Sangramsingh Thakur" ThankYou --ForArtist (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

deleted several times and protected against recreation. I will not restore it. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for finalizing and approving Cerus_Corporation

Thanks DGG for making the last few edits and approving my article posted for Cerus_Corporation. My dad had a mini-stroke in winter, and then my son died in April, so I've been preoccupied and not very motivated to do volunteer work. I was worried this article would be dropped and wasted, but thanks to your efforts it has been posted.

Now that this article is complete, I think the entry for Cerus Corporation here needs to be removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies/A-E#C

I can do this, but am not sure about removing clerk-endorsed (or any) lines. Regarding RfA clerk activity, how do entries get clerk-endorsed? In my own selfish interests, I sure would like to see the company entry for Cerence endorsed or likelied or something. Cerence products are in over half of shipped cars these days, it's the only remaining NY NASDAQ listed entry in all of the Company RfA entries, and now it's added to the S&P MidCap 400. Frazierjason (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Frazierjason I will look this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(stilll needs checking)' DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

AFC Rejection: UPN

Hi DGG, You recently rejected the Article I proposed for UPN, a non-proprietary software gaining more traction in the Business Development/Management eco system, with the brief comment: 'No evidence of General adoption', could you please expand on this for me, what does this actually mean? I am still keen to get this article published so any light you can shed on this would be very helpful... Thanks. - from User:Jameshancock01

this is about Draft:Universal Process Notation (UPN)

Jameshancock01 "gaining traction" implies to me that it is not yet a widely used standard. The articles needs to be much clearer about who developed it, and a link to a formal description of the standard. Then it should describe they key features, but not advocate for why it is better. And it needs an explicit reference to the extent to which it has been adopted. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(declined by 2 additional reviewers after my decline) DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft

Hi. I have added several sources to Faridollah Adib Ahein. May you please move it to mainspace? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Commented at the draft. I don't think this was a good choice for an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what your are looking for to show the notability of an Afghan painter. Numerous "independent" and "reliable" sources in Iran and Afghanistan have described his works. Also his works have been the subject of "artistic critique". I have created the pages for several Afghan painters in English and Persian Wikipedia. The sources for an Afghan painter cannot be found in European/American high-profile media; it should be naturally found in local media. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

does he have any works in the permanent colelction of major museums> That;s the basic English WP criterion. Each WP does some things differently.I went to considerable trouble to translate & read the sources, but I could find no mention of this. If I missed it, let me know, and I'll look again or find an expert. DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC) .

Imaginal retraining

Dear DGG, I have created the wikipedia website on "Imaginal Retraining", which you moved into the draft section. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. In the meantime, I have worked hard on the article and, for example, improved the clarity of the language. I would like to assure you that I did not copy-paste any material and that I tried to write in a neutral manner and also mentioned critical points. For example, I have added that results on long-term efficacy are missing. Further, the site is not about business; there is no financial conflict of interest. I would be grateful if you could change the status from draft to main article. Yours Wiki psych21 (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I will look again, but not until next week. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated, yours --Wiki psych21 (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki psych21 It has now been reviewed by a very experienced reviewer, who suggested that this is a variant of "approach-avoidance tasks", and that the article should instead be written on that topic. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Early history of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

Hello DGG, I noticed this comment from an editor on the AfD about COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis [10]. It is a common misconception that the possibility of a lab accident as the cause of the spillover was fabricated by US politicians, as that editor claims, but we have sources which set the record straight [11] [12] [13]. One such source we are missing is a particular Daily Mail article, but the Daily Mail has been deprecated, which seems to me to be quite an extreme measure. Do you think we can use this Daily Mail article by Ian Birrell to cite Mark Keim’s February 2020 statements in the leaked Red_Dawn#Red_Dawn_Emails [14]? Citing Mark Keim’s statements are important IMO, as they precede Senator Tom Cotton, as described here [15]. Do you think it's worth me proposing on WP:RS/N to take the Daily Mail down a peg from deprecated to usable with WP:INTEXT attribution for non controversial statements? I don’t think Birrell’s recounting of Keim’s leaked emails should be considered controversial, but I am not sure how this proposal will be received. I would value your advice on this. Thanks. CutePeach (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach please don't do this. . The prejudice against the DM is so strong that it would be introducing a side issue where most people have such strong feelings, that it would make everything much more difficult. It's hard to impossible even getting an OK to use the DM in some completely uncontroversial matter when it's the best source . Yes, I do think the restriction is too strong, and it's very similar to the objections being unfairly raised against proper coverage of the origins of covid, and some of the same people are involved. I would very much like to change it, but it's not likely, and this is not the issue.

The general phenomenon is moral panic--upon seeing a serious problem we failed to address--like the many years of using this relatively unacceptable and certainly disreputable source much too freely, we react by going much too far in the opposite direction, and being stubborn about it. This general human behavior is the basis of many unreasonable decisions and actions at WP. It's very difficult to challenge, and I never take on such a situation without an otherwise very solid case, and almost always I lose even so. More generally, one of the problems WP will always have is that if there 's solid majority for whatever reason behind a foolish decision, there's very often nothing that can be done about it. Every form of communication has its disadvantages, and this one is our's. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Italian physicist Lorenzo Iorio

Hello. I am approaching you to ask you if you could help in curing the anomaly with the Italian physicist Lorenzo Iorio. As you may see, he is the Editor-in-Chief of an academic journal which has an article in Wikipedia. Furthermore, there are several independent, third-parties outlets dealing with his researches. Over the years, a big mess around him occurred in Wikipedia so that, now, he has not an article in Wikipedia and it is not possible to write it unless one is Admin. In my opinion, this is an anomaly which should be cured. Than you. LuanaTKD (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Since it seems the even creation in Draft space is protected, and I wlll assume you have no conenction whatsoever with any of the previous editors, I suggest you write it in user space, as a subpage. Write it entirely independently of all previous versions. Then let me know. But I shall ask the opinion of the admins involved i n the previous deletion and salting, rather than judge it myself. --or you could ask them directly. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it is better you look into this matter since, as I openly declared, I have connections with Lorenzo Iorio. Moreover, at least from my point of view, the only thing Admins look is not his scientific merits but just sockpuppetry issues. I am sure that I will be soon blocked since I have connections with him, independently of what I actually made here. Iorio is a pariah in Wikipedia. Thanks. LuanaTKD (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I am only concerned with getting good articles on notable scientists. Write the draft, and I will decide what to do. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Where should I write that? In my user page? Please, let me know. LuanaTKD (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello LuanaTKD and DGG. The name Lorenzo Iorio is familiar to me, though it was from 2011. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination). That page also contains links to the prior AfD and the two deletion reviews. The Italian article at it:Lorenzo Iorio was also deleted. The Italian equivalent of an AfD was at it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Lorenzo Iorio. It appears there was sockpuppet activity regarding Iorio's article on both the English and Italian Wikipedias. User:LuanaTKD has correctly declared a conflict of interest regarding Iorio on their user page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

::: He is the Editor-in-Chief of a Clarivate and Scopus-indexed journal with two Nobel Lau reates in its board, and his h-index is 42 according to Google Scholar and 41 according to NASA/ADS. From his personal page, I see that several popular outlets pubished articles on his researches over the years. If you write the article, probably it will be accepted. Please, consider that I am unfamiliar with all the details of the rules of Wikipedia, so I do not know where I should write a draft. Thank you for your help. LuanaTKD (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

there will be rhe same effect if you write it and I approve it,. DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I wrote it in my talk page. Thanks for looking at it. LuanaTKD (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This article was salted at the time due to his ongoing on- and off-wiki schoolyard feud with another Italian physicist multiple attempts to re-create his own article. Please also see: User talk:Adolphus79#Wikipedia article for the Italian physicist Lorenzo Iorio (from February 2020). - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not true. This was just one of the pretexts to remove Iorio's article from Wikipedia. The tone used here by Adolphus79 to describe the issue with the other physicists, in particular the use of the word schoolyard, demonstrates that he is biased against Iorio and that he is not impartial in dealing with this issue. Having an article in Wikipedia does not depend if you are a good guy or if you steal the girlfriend to your colleagues. LuanaTKD (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, you did not read the link I provided. I told Mr. Iorio directly that he does appear to qualify for an article under WP:PROF, and that the only reason he could not create it at the time were the 2 different AfDs, as well as the multiple attempts to re-create after said AfDs (as well as his use of multiple sockpuppets). In the future, please remember to assume good faith.

Secondly, I find it a little odd that your writing styles and mannerisms, both in your writing here vs. Mr. Iorio's conversation last year on my talk page, as well as the heavy reliance on "h index scores" instead of reliable sources in writing Mr. Iorio's article very closely match User:Iorio.Lorenzo, which was the last known sockpuppet of Mr. Iorio. More questionably, your current talk space draft and User:Iorio.Lorenzo/sandbox are nearly identical compared to any other physicist articles. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You might write the article by yourself, if you like. I already asked DGG to do so, and he said that I should have done it, and he would eventually approve it. Mine was just a scratch to show/remind to you and other people interested that he deserves the article. Google Scholar and NASA/ADS (a database that, in the case of Iorio, is more suited than, say, High Energy ones) are independent reliable sources and, for a scientist, h-index is one of the criteria to include it in Wikipedia. As the fact that he is EiC of an academic, indexed journal. I do not think that anyone could write things too much different on him: one cannot fabricate data and information. There are several links by popular magazines, blogs, etc which describe some of his researches: some seem to be dead, some other are still working. All in all, Wikipedia should include articles on somebody solely based on scientific merit, while you are considering other stuff. It seems to me that in the policies of Wikipedia it is stated that one that is related to the subject can write an article on the subject provided he declares openly his connection with him. And I did so. You required me good faith: are you sure that you are really in good faith beating around the bush in this way? Thank you. LuanaTKD (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

What I consider our relevant policy and guideline are: The relevant standard is WP:PROF, which requires showing influence, which is normally measured by citations to highly cited articles . h scores are not a reliable measure of influence. An auxiliary factor is eic of a major scientific journal. RS are needed for the biographical portion; normally they need not be third party RS, but the situation here would require them for sources covering the dispute. Our BLP policy is more important than the guidelines for notability. I shall take a look tomorrow for the scientific aspects.. As for the charges between the two scientists, the only way I can deal with this at the present is to make a reference to 3rd party RSs covering it, but not include detail here. One thing WP can absolutely not do, is attempt to judge between them. Further questions about NPOV and BLP on this belong in the BLPN noticeboard. I am no longer a checkuser, and do not currently investigate puppettry unless it's obvious on the face of it.

this is my usertalk page. The subject is closed here. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DDG. Sorry to bother you again here. Have you had time to look into the Iorio's matter? Thank you LuanaTKD (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I shall work on it according to my own priorities. I had not realized that what you are apparently attempting is self-advertising, and I do not generally help people do that. You started this discussion by saying "As you may see, he is the Editor-in-Chief of an academic journal which has an article in Wikipedia". You omitted the detail that you wrote that article yourself. I accepted the article on that journal, Universe(journal) on the basis of its indexing. You then attempted to add some puffery, namely the very notable people on the editorial board. We do not include the editorial board in articles about journals, especially because there can only be the very loosest connection with the journal--distinguished scientists will sometimes sign on to any board they are asked to. Indeed, its publisher, MDPI, has been accused, in my opinion very convincingly, of including people on the board of their journals without even their consent. MDPI is not in any possible sense a major scientific publisher, and Universe is not a journal important enough that being the eic is enough to prove notability. I have removed the puffery and given you a warning about using WP for advertising or promotionalism.

In the article version on your usertalk page, the Google Scholar link goes to the page for another scientist working in the same general field, not him. The link on the draft in your talk space is however correct. Neither is acceptable in its present form; if you write a proper one, let me know, and I might consider it. My standard advice for how to write it is as follows " Make sure the article contains, first, the basic biographical information such as birthyear and birthdplace, then the full sequence of degrees and professional positions in chronological order, with dates. Next, a complete list of books published, with year, date, publisher, ISBN (referenced to WorldCat), and links to published reviews of the books; and (in the sciences) the 5 or so most cited peer-reviewed articles, given in full with coauthors, full name of journals, and links, with the number of citations to each of them from Google Scholar of Scopus or ISI; any national level awards--(not junior awards or awards from their own university) Add major national-level outside positions, such as president of the major national organizations, and any positions of editor-in-chief ; Membership or minor offices in most societies, and service on editorial boards, do not count for much & are better omitted. Very sparse articles attract skepticism. as do those using vague claims and superlatives, or those that list all possible internal and external committes. " (You can in this case include the links to published articles about his work). And you must yourself remove all irrelevant information such as total citations and similar factors--it's the person's most important work that makes anyone notable . When notability is borderline, factors of promotionalism make a difference. Neither I nor the community will accept a borderline notable but promotional article--and especially an autobiography. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In case that wasn't clear, I do not plan to work further on it. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Please look at Alex Millmow

Ignore, please, that it is attributed to me. It is not mine. Recent self move to mainspace. Professors seem to be your forte Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

certainly shows every sign of coi puffery; I checked to see if by any chance the books are important, and they are not. It's now at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(kept, apparently on the basis of the reviews of his books) DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Please look at Draft: Peter Benes

I hope I'm doing this correctly (it's been a while since I've been active) but I am puzzled by the rationale Chris Troutman offered (and tagged you for comment) on this submission. Tbh, his reasoning seems a little thoughtless and uninformed. The article is the founder of the Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife, an important scholarly association in the region deemed notable enough to have a listing (you'll see I authored that entry some years ago). But his comments don't actually address the basis for the entry at all. The statement that his awards are "not notable" -- on what possible basis is that assessment made? The AASLH (also notable enough for an entry) is the nation's main professional association in that area, and the book awards are from leading scholarly associations (which are also notable enough to have Wikipedia entries--but the awards they confer are not notable?). So is it Wikipedia's policy that academic achievement/awards in and of themselves do not confer notability? (I see many pages for other historians--how is the distinction made b/w notable/not notable historians?) The further statement that his scholarship itself is "not notable" is sort of jaw-dropping to see from someone who is not, to my knowledge, at all familiar with this field (though the multiple awards over Benes' whole career would suggest that experts in the field find otherwise)? Naturally I am disappointed to see this conclusion, but it just seems surprisingly sloppy. I am glad another reviewer was tagged for a second opinion. (comment by User: Mrmedit)

Mrmedit, He might be notable under either WP:PRF or WP:AUTHOR, but the article needsto be rewritten. It shouldn't include a list of the publications of the society he organized. A notable award is a highest level award by the leading national society in the field. Almost all of these awards fare for individual books, and should just be mentioned together with the book. The award from the AASLH is one of many given that year. What you need to show notability is to find and references to substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads--don't quote selected blurbs from them--all reviews contain something positive. It is relatively difficult here to show notability for local historians, but it's possible. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC) . (comment by User: Mrmedit)

I will continue to work on this given the above feedback though I am still puzzled. I used entries for other historians as models and this entry just doesn't seem that different from others I find already accepted -- e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_B._Danbom; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Lefkowitz_Horowitz; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Slotkin). The Cummings and Kniffen Awards are two of the most prestigious awards available to historians of material culture/built environment, and at least in History, to have three of one's monographs land "best book" awards (include one's first book) from a range of scholarly associations is actually quite notable. I can delete the list of Seminar proceedings, but much of Benes' impact was as editor of those publications--in fact that work constitutes a major source of his influence on the field, and is what anyone would find looking him on on Worldcat, so it would seem strange to omit them, though I could just refer in the prose that these 44 edited volumes containing nearly 500 scholarly articles? The two reviews quoted, btw, were both in scholarly journals (not Amazon or Goodreads, etc); I wasn't sure that quoting from academic reviews at all is actually that desirable on Wikipedia (again, looking at entries for other influential historians I didn't see a lot of that), but it's easy to do.

Mrmedit. I agree that three best book awards are significant, if we can show the awards are of particular importance. This cannot be assumed, unless we have an article on the award There are 6 book awards listed. Pick the significant ones, and add a phrase clarifying why. There's 2 other awards: how significant are they (as a guide, how many people received them) I can not think of another example where we include a list of books on a series of which a person was editor or publisher in an article about them. Certainly there is no possible justification for listing them twice, once in the article about him, and once in the article about the organization--you need to choose which. We try to include referneces to book reviews, because that's a key criterion for WP:AUTHOR . You may. have misunderstood me--we don't usually include excerpts from the reviews, because there's always a positive phrase somewhere that could be used--it's surprising difficult to write even the most negative review without including something that could be use for an advertisement. (I ought to know--I wrote several hundred reviews of academic books for Choice)

Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz held a named professorship; David B. Danbom was president of a national society; Richard Slotkin holds a named professorship and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. All three have much more modest articles than the current draft. (& remember to sign your comments there's a shortcut: 4 tildes ~~~~ DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Mrmedit, I still intend to get to this. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Article Rejection and call for review of my submission

Hi DGG, thanks for reviewing my submission recently. I am writing you here to say that I am not paid to write on Wikipedia, and am just trying to contribute on things I find interesting, and then after research, that I think are noteworthy. In this case I really believe that a new type of materials as developed out of ingenuity on set of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is worth talking about! If my language or the article seems promotional, it is not on purpose. This is the reason I am submitting my articles for review, because I do not want something on Wikipedia that more experienced editors view as not noteworthy. Thanks again for your feedback and time. (from User:Undeerstood12

This is about : Draft:Kaynemaile Architectural Mesh

If you only write about things you find interesting, I can understand why you might write about Kaynemaile Architectural Mesh. or Makey Makey But how about Pablo del Campo, an advertising executive so promotionally written as to refer to him by his first name as if he were an entertainer, or Robert Senior, an exec in the same advertising firm, or Draft:Chris Foster (Advertising), yet another exec at the same firm, or Draft:Rae Dylan, a life coach; or Draft:Xiamen Innovax Biotech which makes a Hepatitis vaccine approved in only one country? I await your reply. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

[[User::Understood12 |

Understood12]], as you have never replied, I have listed the Kaybemaile draft for deletion, and am checking other articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Noom

Hi DGG,

You tagged the article for Noom as an advert, but I don’t see any specifics or explanation, either in the article’s “history” page, on the article’s “talk” page, or on my “talk” page.

In fact, I addressed this issue one month ago on Noom’s “talk” page. Perhaps we can continue the conversation there? I’m more than happy to make corrections, but it’s hard to do so without more info.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.

11:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC) (from User:PetesPizza)

I made some comments there. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I am still considering nominating this for deletion, DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPROF

I saw your comment on that talk page. You are absolutely right. I have little experience with WP:PROF. I stupidly wandered into an area that I was not experienced in. Is it okay if you explain to me how this works? For the record, I am refraining from future AFC reviews until my head clears up. I have been dealing with mental health issues that negatively affects me in a lot of ways. My AFC work before my problems started was fine. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind. Instruction might not be the best for me right now. I just don't think I have the mental capacity for instruction or AFC right now. I have disabled it in my preferences. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yuhuazhai Subdistrict's readability

Hello, DGG. Could you help me check article Yuhuazhai Subdistrict? I think its expression is a bit strange for most English readers. I am not a native English user, so I am not very sure about it. How do you think of its readability? I need your help. Thanks for your assist. Best wishes!--波斯波莉斯 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

[[User::波斯波莉斯|波斯波莉斯]], Your English style is very clear and readable, and there are no grammar or idiom errors. The writing is fully up to the usual Wikipedia level. I added one paragraph break, a few words, and one link. .

I have one question. What has happened since 2018? I gather the urban village was in fact demolished, but if so, it should be said explicitly. (also, did were there any PRC news agency responses or refutations to the RFAsia report? Are there are later reports of any sort from the subdistrict?

I would imagine there is an article on the subdistrict in Baidu Baike, and also in Baike.com. They would seem to be appropriate external links. Or is there consensus among those working on Chinese topics here not to include them? I see from the Google translation that such links are not present in the zhWP either. Possibly there is the assumption that anyone who can read Chinese can find them easily enough.

There are a few idiom errors on your user page, I could list them for you to correct, or I could correct the obvious ones. But it's your page, and I won't do anything unless you ask me--it would be considered perfectly OK here to leave it as it is..

It would help somewhat if there were a Latin script user name also--It gives those who do not know Chinese a way to think of you--you could add it in parenthesis when you write on the enWP --or is it the standard custom for Chinese contributors not to do so? DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Administrator changes

BusterD

Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversighter changes

TheresNoTime

ST47

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)