User talk:DGG/Archive 177 Oct. 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

Neal Fraser

Hello, I would like to retrieve the content Neal Fraser that was recently removed so I can use it for future reference. However, I see that the article was removed because it was not deemed to use notable or independent sources. The article used the same type of sources as Timothy Hollingsworth's page, which has been on Wikipedia for quite some time. I'm not quite sure what makes the article that was created for Neal Fraser different as it is a biography of the chef. I appreciate any guidance you may have on how to improve the content so it will be more acceptable. Halejiana (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)halejiana

The article was deleted because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. The article on Hollingwood does have some promotional content that needs removal, but the basis for the article is his extremely notable career. There is in addition a considerable different: holligwood has been chef de cuisine at probably the most famous of all contemporary American restaurants. In any case, there are many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them.

More important, Since this is your only contribution, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - this is helpful. I would argue the same is true of the Fraser article in that it describes his notable career including his early life, education and restaurants. He has also worked in quite a few of the most notable restaurants as well. Is there somewhere you would point to make the content more encycolpedic so it complies with Wikipedia standards? I very much appreciate the help. Halejiana (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)halejiana

Please, respond to the question above. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am a connected contributor and I will use the necessary "paid" disclosures. I appreciate you sharing those links with me. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I do not expect that it will be my last contribution as I understand the best practices of contributing to the Wikipedia community through creating additional content and editing articles.

I would advise you to wait until lhe receives a major award or the like. We get many articles on restaurants and chefs. Most are promotion; the others are by fans. even in the most nPOV article in this field there's inherently some promotional effect. It's a dilemma how to handle them, for all restaurants of any pretension get reviews. What happens at AfD in each case decides, and AfD is unpredictable. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I 'm a little reluctant to detailed help to coi editors, unless the article is in my main field of interest, and the subject is so very notable that it would leave a gap in the encyclopedia I will still explain my decisions, and offer general advice, but beyond that, it's up to you to first learn the practices at WP by working as a volunteer on topics of general interest to you. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, DGG,Thank you for telling me that Nagendra and Durgadas (novel) are not promotional articles, and please Ramdarash Mishra was also nominated by Bb123 for removal as a promotional article, but it has not been removed yet, you were right that I am still unable to check others' edits, I am once vandalism, disruptive I can recognize edits, but I haven't tried to check others' edits until today, because I thought it was impossible without special rights, I'm sure the day I'll be able to check others' edits I will go, some manager will definitely give me special rights if needed, can you check my contribution on English Wikipedia, this is my humble request to you.Best Regards Jiggyziz ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 07:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are not able to check other edits. There's a tab at the top saying View History (or a tab saying More, one of the items under it will be view history). You are possibly using a mobile phone with some partial interface--see WP:Editiing on mobile devices and User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing

But there are several things you need to do when you continue to edit here:

Most important , make absolutely sure nothing of what you use is copied from any previously published source, print or online.

Second, never use adjectives of praise or excellence. Try to use as few adjectives at possible. Write in as plain a style as possible

Make sure you separate fact and opinion, Everything needs a good third party reliable source for every claim--you cannot just say that someone wrote excellent poetry.

Learn how to use references properly. See [[WP:CITEBEGIN]

I hope this helps. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

)

Changes to AfC Draft:Robert K Cunningham

Thanks DGG for your feedback on this, my first AfC submission. I've edited down the number of publications to the top five, per your suggestion. Thanks for your help with this! I hope I am using this talk page correctly-- this is also new to me. :-).

Upitt-panther (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Upitt-panther . I accepted it. I will make few changes for style. The most important of them is to highlight the Fellow IEEE in the first sentence, for this alone is enough to prove notability by WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Karan Bajaj draft

Hello, DGG! You've left the comment on the Draft:Karan Bajaj page, mentioning that the draft might be notable with additional sources about the person as an author. May I ask you to detail, please, on what can be done about the draft? For instance, Bajaj authored 4 books and one even was bought for film adaptation (according to the source). Do you think more reviews will help to improve the draft? I'd appreciate your feedback. Best, --Habibiroyal (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Habibiroyal I accepted it, but do not be srprisedif it is nominated for a disccussion at Articles for Deletion. More reviews would help. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Changes to AfC Draft:Robert K Cunningham

Thanks DGG for your feedback on this, my first AfC submission. I've edited down the number of publications to the top five, per your suggestion. Thanks for your help with this! I hope I am using this talk page correctly-- this is also new to me. :-).

Upitt-panther (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Upitt-panther . I accepted it. I will make few changes for style. The most important of them is to highlight the Fellow IEEE in the first sentence, for this alone is enough to prove notability by WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Karan Bajaj draft

Hello, DGG! You've left the comment on the Draft:Karan Bajaj page, mentioning that the draft might be notable with additional sources about the person as an author. May I ask you to detail, please, on what can be done about the draft? For instance, Bajaj authored 4 books and one even was bought for film adaptation (according to the source). Do you think more reviews will help to improve the draft? I'd appreciate your feedback. Best, --Habibiroyal (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Habibiroyal I accepted it, but do not be srprisedif it is nominated for a disccussion at Articles for Deletion. More reviews would help. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Nitendra Singh Rathore

Hi, DGG User:Nitendra Singh Rathore Moved our Userpage on Nitendra Singh Rathore , I l've Removed Redirect. Please Do anything. Best Regards. Jiggyziz ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 01:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Jiggyziz normally, he will not be notable until he wins the election. It seems from the sources the former MLA and minister was his father, not himself. I'm moving it to Draft: Nitendra Singh Rathore. When he wins, add information about the voting, and then resubmit. The page that was started under User: Nitendra Singh Rathore should not have been there in that place, so I am deleting it. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

DGG , Thanks for This Action. I'll Work on this Draft When He Wins Election. Best Regards. Jiggyziz ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 05:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Robert K. Cunningham

Is there a reason why you haven't removed the AFC submission template? The article says that it was accepted, and that the reviewer is in the process of completing the acceptance. For a change, that statement is true. My first comment is that if I see that stupid message on an article that should have been accepted, it was probably accepted by you. I think that there was a discussion that the AFC template is left standing if the reviewer clicks to close the window that the article is in before the script finishes running, because the script runs in the window, not in the background. So, first, would it be possible to click on the tab for another window to switch focus, rather than clicking on the X thing to close the window to switch focus? You are the main reviewer who sometimes leaves articles in this state when they were legitimately accepted. (Otherwise they were moved without using AFC, and may have been ready for article space, and may not have been ready for article space.) Second, you subsequently made edits to Cunningham. Is there a reason why you didn't then remove the AFC thing? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I have by now. If not, let me know. I mistakes, but the afch template makes more than I do. DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean that the AFCH template makes more mistakes than you do, or that the AFCH template is a mistake when drafts are moved to article space by a non-reviewer, because the template mis-states the status of the article, and reviewers have been requesting changes to its wording for months, and been ignored? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC

The AFCH template makes more mistakes than I do, and can not keep up at times, especially with irregular moves. I think I do normally try to wait for it. I hadn't though about switching to anothr tab, but I`ll give it a try. I also make mistakes, especially when dealing with a complicated situation, and I also appreciate being notified, and fix things unless someone else does so before I get there. Some of the problems come from my working with articles which are sometimes being deleted while I'm editing them . DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Benneth Nwankwo

I've worked a bit more on the article as you suggested, DGG, but cannot understand what you mean by removing adjectives. Some of them, e.g. documentary, indigenous, seem important while to remove "laudable" from the comment by Mbanefo would reduce the impact of his statement. Nevertheless, the article looks to me as if it is ready for mainspace where, of course, it could be further improved. As I have explained elsewhere, I have no special interest in this article and rarely work on men's BLPs. My only interest is to encourage the new contributor Olugold to continue to edit on Wikipedia. I note, btw, that if successful, the article will be a useful new contribution to the current African Ciné Contest. If you now think it's OK, may I suggest you move the article into mainspace yourself. I already seem to have earned a shady reputation in some quarters as a result of my "interest" in it. Thanks for offering your assistance on this. It's much appreciated.--Ipigott (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott, This has gotten stuck in a procedural loop. I am unprotecting. I Before you accept it, there are still some unsourced statements. I can't accept it myself, as I do not consider myself qualified to judge notability in this subject area. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You told FP@S to stay off your talk page and archived to history on 22/8/21

Other editors can't do the same as he gets nasty. He told a story about others which, applying the principle of WP:AGF you probably didn't check. He accused one person of "obsession about calendar issues" and "that Mohammed picture they were ranting about." He provided a link gambling you wouldn't check. On the linked page the last complaint (30 April 2020) was about "provocative and leading questions about the political response to Covid-19." The previous complaint on 3 April 2020 was about five different IPs the subject of whose edits was (1) TV weather bulletins (2) Suez Canal (3) Hierarchies. There is a link from there to an SPI page where on 29 June 2021 editors who edited on the subject of an Oprah Winfrey interview were targeted. The outcome was (1) one accused editor was found to have actually removed a racist attack on the Mayor of London (2) one accuser was globally locked (3) the case was dismissed. On 7 July there was another complaint about the Oprah Winfrey editors. FP@S showed up within eight minutes to profusely thank the filer and block. The problem appears to go back years judging by this comment:

...Although I probably should have learnt a lesson from years back when a rather excited admin blocked me for apparently deliberately proxying for a banned user...

- The Rambling Man 17:52, 8 August 2021.

There's an entry on his log for 11 January 2016 annotated harassment, proxying for banned editors by FP@S. 77.103.9.55 (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

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

Administrator changes

Blablubbs

Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)

Oversighter changes

Callanecc

Mkdw

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
• Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news

• DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.

Arbitration

• A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
• Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
• The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year. [!?]

Miscellaneous

• Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
• The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

---

• Discuss this newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Mark Elliott Brecher

picking your academic brain as I'm known to do :D Ignoring the state of the article, which is no doubt copied from a CV, would you mind having a look to see if you think he's notable as a researcher? I'm not finding any indication he'd meet WP:ACADMIC, however this seems to indicate he might-I just can't find the citations to back up the volume. I feel like he should be, and his work is well within the time of "findable on the internet". Thanks, as always, and hope you're well. Star Mississippi 22:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Star Mississippi: yes, he is notable under WP:NPROF, with very high citation counts. The easy way to do this is to enter his name as "ME Brecher" in google scholar. If there are more than 2 articles listed cited more than 200 times each, that's all that's necessary to prove notability. No 3rd party refs are necessary, and his lab corp page is reliable enough fo the basic bio. NPROF is different from everything else. The notability is by having published articles with high citations. , not anything connected in any way with the GNG. (there are other way of meeting WP:PROF, but citation counts are the usual.)

If you want to harmonize this with the GNG, it is possible to think of the papers citing his work as independent reliable published sources. But the actual guideline is that this is completely independent of either the GNG or presumed notability.

I'll fix up the article; the main problem at this point is copypaste. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, as always, for the academic notability lesson. Didn't think to try ME Brecher, although I had dropped Elliot to see if he was covered in GNG sourcing without the middle name. Glad I checked as he definitely seemed like he should be notable, especially with roles he held. One of the easier ones to sort out from the 2011 notability backlog. Thanks again! Star Mississippi 17:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Star Mississippi My apologies, I repeated it all here in my automatic sort of way, for anyone who looks here, as people do. But a trick with google scholar--the standard form that is supposed to works best is ME Brecher, tho sometimes it doesn't get them all together, and it is necessary to try the other possibilities also. This sometimes causes disambiguation problems, and requires manual sorting by subject. . trick 2: if the article already gives the link, it may not be lead a list that includes everything, and I always search from scratch as wlll. trick3 If I cannot figure out the right form, I search by title for one of the papers if they are given, and see what form they use. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• • Sorry if I sounded unappreciative, wasn't meant that way. I always find some new layer of the academic onion no matter how many times I come here looking for your .02 on an article. Star Mississippi 01:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Asking for deletation of Patrick Maher (writer)

Hi @DGG, I would like to ask for assistance in deleting the article Patrick Maher (writer). There are several problems with the article. First of all, I know this man in person and he is one of my clients and we are connected professionally. Now about the article, the article has full of false/misguided information about a song that he wrote and a book that he published. Which is damaging his impression. Most of the citations were promotional articles and now only 2-3 of the links are live, all others were deleted. The article was nominated for deletion for two times and also a CSD A7 was asked against the article by other editors in different times. But somehow it survived. So what do you suggest me and my client to do. He doestn't want the article about him on Wikipedia. I need your assistance to delete the article. Can you please help us deleting the article? N:B:We can provide all the necessary documents to prove that Patrick Maher by himself is asking the deletion of this article(Just ask for it). Thanks and regards. --Simplewikipedian (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I have always been of the opinion that except in the case of libel, no account should be taken of the subject's opinions. It amounts to giving them censorship over an article, and destroys NPOV. Other admins sometimes think differently on this, but no admin has the right to proceed in this by their own opinion. Each case is decided separately after a discussion, and results vary. The way to proceed is to ask for deletion at an AfD. See WP:AFD for instructions. As advice, state your coi, make your case, but then don't get into argument--the arguments in these instances need experience here, DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

adapted from my comment on Talk:Nipsey Hussle

• The minor business ventures that performing artists and athletes and other celebrities use to capitalize on their name are not entrepreneurship, and should not be mentioned in the lede, unless the enterprises become notable in their own right. if anyone is responsible for the creation of the store, it's probably their business advisors or others of their entourage. The individual is typically a figure used for promotional or advertising value--a name that will attract attention. Nor do I think their community activities and public appearances should be justify calling them an "activist". It should only go in the lead if, because of those activities alone, they would be notable enough for an article.

there are similar terms in the lede of thousands of bios: speaker -- lecturer -- writer-- community leader -- ... For all of them it is possible to be notable; but for a person notable primarily for something else, it's a minor add-on. In my own field, every notable academic is also necessarily a writer and speaker, but usually that's auxiliary to their actual work. Similarly with the most over-used term, "philanthropist" -- giving money to charity, which every decent person does, is in a sense philanthropy -- but a philanthropist is someone who has done enough to be notable for it taken by itself. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Request on 15:07:54, 4 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bukkyoshi

• Bukkyoshi (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jacqueline Stone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just wanted to check in on the article draft for "Jacqueline Stone," which I revised a few weeks ago.

Bukkyoshi (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Accepted. I made a few copyedits. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Georgia College & State University Revisions are ready!

Hi DGG.

Thank you so much for helping me out on the revisions. I appreciate all you are doing, especially since I don't have a wealth of Wikipedia experience. I have attached the requested edits on the GCSU talk page. Let me know if there are any additional revisions.

Once the article has been updated, I would like to go in and attach some photos to give some of the pieces a little perspective. If you could advise on the best way to move forward with photos, I would greatly appreciate it. However, I am not concerned with that until the written portion is finished.

If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. All the best.

Jsmith0909 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

it will take me a few day to get there. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

DGG (talk) No problem! Take your time. Thank you for all that you do.

Jsmith0909 (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

October thanks

October songs

Thank you for accepting G. Ulrich Großmann from draft. What do you think about it's author's block? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: #1700, written in collaboration by the blocked, Grimes2 and myself. I uploaded more images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Today, mostly black&white, and standing upright as Psalm 15 says --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes, - updated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Accepting drafts

Because you recently accepted a problematic draft twice (see above), I looked at some other recent acceptances you did. These are quite worrying, as it seems you don't try to check the references given at all. I have moved two articles on very early Spanish bishops back to draft, as they were very poorly sourced (either one of the two sources didn't mention them, or both didn't mention them), and have now nominated another one for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novak Velimirov Mrdak, as it seems to be a hoax. I hope I am mistaken and my searches were simply very poor, because otherwise it seems as if there are serious problems with your approach to drafts and what you accept. Fram (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: Just before I ran for Arb the first time I found an article accepted by DGG with a clearly unacceptable reference. I didn't mention it because DGG was also running. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed these kinds of issues (and other BLP issues) in the past, but never pursued them. It looks as if Richard Price-Williams is a copyvio of this (note: another copyvio was noted in the history, but this is not the same text). I also don't know why DGG did a "cleanup" of this article which consisted of adding two bare URL links and introducing all kinds of typos and errors (e.g. the long italic bit in the fourth paragraph). The link to ancestry, which was already present, was not only deemed acceptable, but decorated with a nice "®"...). I have just moved Draft:Geza Tarjanyi back to draft: this BLP is "best known" for harassment, but the article later states that the charges were dropped. Um, shouldn't we then not avoid claiming that they were harassing, per WP:BLPCRIME? Fram (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I created Draft:Geza Tarjanyi. From what I can tell, he really is best known for harassing British public officials. It was widely reported in British newspapers. I'd be happy to tone it down, however the sources we have use words like "abused", and a spokesperson from the prime-minister's office described it as "harassed". I don't think being obnoxious to a public official is actually a chargeable offence in the UK, hence the matter of whether charges were "dropped" or not seems to be irrelevant. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the poorly written Harassment in the United Kingdom and what I can find online, yes, harassment is a crime in the UK: as he is not convicted (nay, not even charged), we shouldn't describe his actions as harassment. This is basic BLP policy: it isn't a problem that you don't know it, but DGG, as admin and as the one that accepted the draft, should not have accepted it but contacted you and informed you about this policy instead (or at the very least they should have changed the article to something policy-compliant to start with). Fram (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

How do you feel that this draft ought to be changed to reflect both his legal status and what the sources have reported (and continue to report) about this individual? --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fram as you have suggested I have used alternative words such as "confrontation" and "verbally abused" since this seems to be more precise than the rather vague "harassment". I do wonder that this might fall prey to the same problem. Abusing somebody is arguably just as unlawful as harassing somebody, isn't it? Salimfadhley (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The whole section "assault conviction" also needs a good source or needs to go (and again, a BLP article which has this as an unsourced section should never have been accepted at AfC). Fram (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I will have a look at that now. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The unsourced section has been removed. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Some general comments before I get into the details:

1. The rule at AfC to pass AfD, is to accept articles likely to pass AfD, and the official interpretation of "likely" is 51%. I don't think anyone actually uses that number--I try for about 80% likelihood. Some people try for 100%, but I think they misconceive the process. It's intended to be a first screen only. I became an admin in order to rescue as many articles as possible, and said so in 2006 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DGG which passed 111/1/1 and that is still my goal, though it has been modified by the need to delete the increasing number of paid POV articles. almost all of my recorded admin activity is thus deleting--at this point I've done 48,000 deletions and only 2447 undeletions. [1]

2. Trying for 80% at AfC, I would expect that 20% of the articles I pass end up being considered unsatisfactory. I don't know how to find a figure, but it's considerably smaller than that, so if anything, I'm probably not accepting enough. My practice is to try to keep possible articles and drafts alive until someone can fix them. This is very much more likely to happen in mainspace. I try to fix what I can myself, and my experience is that most of the minimal drafts I accept do get improved further in mainspace. That's what is supposed to happen.

3. I make mistakes. My rate of making a mistake when it's a clear mistake, not just a different interpretation, is about 2%. The best I think anyone who does a large amount of wide-ranging work could do is about 1%. I'd like to get it down to that, and I therefore appreciate being told of errors.

4. I have been making somewhat more mistakes lately. This is due to the pressure I feel from being one of the very few people here actually trying to rescue drafts--most of what I accept is not drafts that have ben rejected, but drafts which have never been reviewed at all, and I might be the only person looking at them regularly. The solution is for more people to do it, and if anyone thinks they can do it more carefully, but still look at everything, I'd be delighted to work more on other things. Before AfC, I used to work mainly at trying to reference articles at AfD, and I'd like to get back to that more often. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Now, some details:

1. The Spanish bishops are intrinsically notable ; all bishops of the Roman CatholicChurch are, as shown by many AfDs. Even ministubs are acceptable, as also shown by many AfDs. Some people still disagree with that, but I was following consensus. Spain before the Moslem conquest is actually better documented than most regions of early medieval Europe. I may have been premature to not first add better sources, but they could have been added if challenged, and the articles would therefore not be deleted at AfD, which meets the requirement for accepting them. . Now that they have been challenged, I of course need to add the sources, which I will; I may even have them around the house. All of the articles can be expanded, and if not, merged. I was perhaps not following id eal practice, but it was still acceptable. I'm not going to get into an edit war and add hem back to mainspace.

2. Novak Velimirov Mrdak was an error. As I said at the afd, I should not have accepted it; I should have seen the original had no references. . I'm quite frustrated by the many attempts to put in wp what appear to be translations of articles from the Serbia or serbocroatian WP that we cannot in practice verify. I've asked repeatedly for help at the relevant wikiprojects without any results. I think I'm going to give up on them.

3. Richard Price-Williams needs further checking; it's a frequent error to clean up one copyvio and not find another one behind it. I think the facts come from the same source--I need to recheck the wording. At the least, I'll rewrite; if it reads like a probable copyvio and i can't find it, I generally do a thorough paraphrase or rewrite to avoid the possibility of a problem. I should have gone slower on this one, and I'll get back to it tonight.

4.Draft:Geza Tarjanyi. seems to be a question of interpretation about the exact wording, rather than an error. I don't know if he's actually notable--BLP CRIME AfDs are decided inconsistently. The place to resolve the question is AfD, which will decide one way or another, wrongly or rightly, but it is the place to decide. I will routinely accept an AfC I don't think should really be in WP, if I thing there's a good chance AfD will accept it. I would be wrong to do otherwise--we're not supposed to accept based on our own views of what ought to be in WP, but what the community will accept. If I followed my own idea of content, WP would be very different. Some admins may think we should do that, but they are wrong to do so, and that is not only my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reviewing Draft:Geza Tarjanyi. I think we may indeed have a difference in wording, and I'm slightly sad that the "fix" was a draftify rather than removing/editing words which concerned an editor. I do think there's a problem here, the subject is a person who has been accused of many crimes, arrested many times but convicted of a few offences.

Media has reported on him "harassing" public servants not because he was convicted of harassment according to a legal definition, but because they saw the videos of the subject of the article verbally abusing and blocking the progress of public servants. Fram has suggested that we use words like "Abuse", but being "abusive" is also illegal, are we to avoid any critical words if they also happen to be crimes of which he has not been convicted?

In any case, I've had another go at fixing the article by using alternative words and removing a short unsourced section. I think there might be a bigger problem which is that despite having had lots of coverage (mainly in the local crime section), I'm not sure if any of it counts as "significant" coverage. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I ever suggested or supported using "abuse" or a variation thereof? Fram (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, but I think you largely miss the point. None of my remarks and redrafts were about notability. I don't really care whether these would survive AfD or not (although obviously it's better if they have a good chance at least). My concerns were:

• An unsourced BLP (see section "Draft:G. Ulrich Großmann" above)
• A BLP with on the one hand claims of criminal behaviour in the lead, where the body made it clear that the charges were dropped; and on the other hand an unsourced section claiming that the BLP was convicted for other stuff. This is content which is not acceptable on enwiki, and certainly not in the mainspace.
• A copyvio
• A hoax
• And two articles where the outdated sources didn't mention the subject, making them basically unsourced articles.

None of these should have been accepted, but in none of these cases is their chance at AfD relevant. When you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, you get quick-fail criteria: first one is copyvio (yep, got one of those), second one is "negative unsourced BLP" (while the one here wasn't completely like this, it had enough of it to be rejected or thoroughly cleaned). The next step is checking verifiability, and there you failed in 4 cases. E.g. Draft:Jacint d'Urgell has two sources (outdated ones, and with not enough information to actually easily check this, e.g. no page numbers, not even a volume number). The first source is perhaps this one[2], which doesn't mention Jacint or Urgell. Neither does the second source (I haven't found the 1883 edition, but in the 1888 one no trace can be found[3] even though the fight against Wamba is called in chapter XXXIII, and other bishops are named there). Of course, does he even exist?[4].

So no, surviving AfD is the least of my worries. Fram (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

For Spain, I need for find the actual sources, not the 19th century histories. I do not like to rely upon 19th century scholarship.The degree of confidence in the existence of a good deal of medieval history is, as you know, a matter of interpretation, and sometimes reputed is the closest thing that can be said for many of the records of pontifical successions in the various dioceses. By 21st c. standards, almost all the enWP historical articles are deficient--with the exception of those copied from the deWP. (except that AngloSaxon history here seems quite up to date, at least by comparison with later periods.

I do have a problem, but the problem is optimism about how much I will actually succeed in verifying and fixing. You are quite correct that this is one of the cases where it seems that I;ve overdone that, and I'm not challenging you about it. Do what you think best with the drafts/articles, if I ever do get to the research, I'll reconstruct them.

As for copyvio on the map article, I'm trying to decide if its worth rewriting--I will probably decide to do one of the accepted things for questionable situations, which is truncating. You are again right, that I didn't do it adequately.

You've made your point. I admit I needed correction. You've done it. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) DGG, Fram, I've been reading this with interest, as the right balance between accepting drafts because they have promise and declining them because they have problems is so hard to find (I tend towards the latter unless the topic is definitely notable, and often even then). Two comments: I've cleaned up Richard Price-Williams (after establishing that the source is two days older than our page), but am doubtful that he is notable. On a more positive note, we actually have an outstanding editor who specialises in mediaeval bishops – Ealdgyth – who might perhaps have time to add a little to those two pages. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon/Norman/Angevin/English medieval bishops, not Spanish ones. The sources are .. not the same. And I don't read Spanish, so I can't access the best of the sources. You want Srnec or Surtsicna, who are a bit more oriented to the Continent. But I would not use mid-1800s sources for medieval bishops/nobles/anyone (except in a few rare exceptions like J. H. Round) because historical scholarship has radically changed since that time. (Thank you for the compliment on Anglo-Saxon history on en wikipedia - although I do think that extends into the Anglo-Norman and Angevin periods also where we've got decent coverage. The Anglo-Saxon stuff is as much Dudley Miles and Mike Christie who have labored there also. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• List of publications of the Charles Close Society for the Study of Ordnance Survey Maps. Really? No evidence of notability in the article whatsoever (and little outside of it[5], but on the other hand (in the accepted, mainspace article) things like "This wiki page has been put created and edited by Alexander Kent and Ashley Lawrence[2], both Committee Members of The Charles Close Society. Our aim is merely to promote the Society to the public, to highlight a resource for study of Ordnance Survey maps and their history, and to promote the study of cartography in general. Nothing more." and "our archive". The page is uncategorized, filled with direct external links instead of references. Of the three references present, two have no information about the Society, and the third is their own website. Fram (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• The one before that, List of ambassadors of Germany to the Philippines, is a G5 creation by User:Ed D. Tipaklong, an extremely obvious sock of User:Izukumidoriya1227/User:Edmund Takagi.

Fram Im obviously still going too fast, and too late at night.I will slow down. My fault. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Baryonychinae

Hey, I noticed you recently deleted the page Draft:Baryonychinae under Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: duplicate, although I'm unsure if this was a mistake. Hiroizmeh (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Hiroizmeh, I seem to have gotten the page caught in a trap. The problem is that I was trying to remove the unwanted redirect to Spinosaurida, and something went wrong. As you left it, the draft was still present as well as the article. I tried to change it to a redirect to the article, and it redirected wrong again. I've now fixed it, but there's no redirect at all and I'm not going to try to make one to avoid messing it up further. Please check the current page to besure that I didn't lose any of your revisions. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi DGG, just a little kitty for all the work you do at AFC.

Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Album chart on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination

Hello, David. I have declined your speedy deletion nomunation of Saeta Perú as obviously made-up (WP:CSD#A11). It is not at all obvious that this was made up by the creator of the article; the cited source looks genuine to me, but if you have reason to believe otherwise then explanation of why is needed, and since it isn't obvious I think it would have to be AfD. Having said that about your A11 nomination, I see this as an obvious A7 candidate, so I shall nominate it under that criterion. JBW (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Auto-patrol

Per your comment at NPP, you may want to look at User talk:Reywas92#Can you please slow down?. I have seen this behavior from AB for quite a while. One line stubs on monuments are another type he creates with no research to determine notability. He seems to think it is OK to "get the ball rolling". I believe there are hundreds or thousands of his articles that have not been investigated. I've nominated a few for AFD and sometimes they are redirected. Sometimes, other editors dig up sources to justify keeping. Most of these would not get through AFC because the sources to show notability are not there when the stubs are created. MB 16:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@MB The vast majority of my stubs flagged for deletion are kept. I can't stop folks from combing through my edits, but I honestly don't think this would be the best use of editors' collective time. Also, what's the harm in asking people to slow down with AfD nominations, especially right after a group of similar entries are tagged? Flagging an article for deletion takes 5 seconds, but doing the research and article expansion takes a lot longer. I think we're making this a bigger deal than necessary and I'm not really sure flagging a bunch of stubs about monuments and historic sites for deletion is a net benefit for Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Statue of Dr. Atl, Statue of Jorge Matute Remus, Monumento a la Madre, Guadalajara, Statue of José Antonio Torres, Statue of Minerva, Guadalajara, Arcos del Milenio, Statue of Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, Guadalajara, Statue of Irene Robledo, Statue of Francisco Rojas González, Statue of Rita Pérez de Moreno, Statue of Enrique González Martínez, Statue of Agustín Yáñez, Statue of Enrique Díaz de León, Statue of José Clemente Orozco, Equestrian statue of José María Morelos, Statue of Pedro Moreno, Statue of Juan José Arreola: All written in a single day, not a SINGLE source among the lot. Once again, you have the mistaken belief of "it's public art, it's automatically notable and needs its own article", which is not the case. Here you're saying "I write countless one-line stubs that fail to assert notability and fail to include multiple significant sources, but you have better things to do than to hold me accountable!" Being kept after you have to be badgered to write more than mere a statement of existence doesn't mean it's okay, and I fail to see why actually following the guidelines so we don't have to ask isn't standard operating procedure to begin with. This lot of articles – made last month and apparently unlikely to be returned to (among your 7000+ articles) – is hardly the first but it's just as egregious. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92 Ok, I hear you and I don't know what else to say other than what I just wrote on your user talk page (in the discussion linked above). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I've had a similar situation with another editor, and the eventual result was that they were asked to make all new articles in draft space, which has made everything more complicated--and as I'm possibly the most sympathetic and posibly knowledgable regular reviewer for the subject they are editing, it ends up being work for me in particular. Technically, making the stubs is permissible. In terms of helping WP, it would be a very much better to always made an article with at least one reference at the initial edit. This will avoid people questioning the edits. It will avoid confusing the NPP people, some of whom may not realize that there are always going to be sources. It will avoid the erosion of one of our long-standing practices, that such statues are notable. (this is based on the fact that previous encyclopedias try to cover such monuments in considerable detail, though older encyclopedia tend to put all the information on a city into one enormously long article, which doesn't work very well on computers.) And it will avoid other people having to feel they need to get into arguments . The simplest way to ensure this is to make sure one has a reference or two in hand before one starts--whcih is the advice I've given many people. (For example, beginners at editathons tend to pick their subject first, and only then look for references; it is much simpler and safer to work the other way round. ) Another good method, as was suggested, is to start making a referenced list, and then go down that list page and expand each item into the individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Baryonychinae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Rosette.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Susane Colasanti for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Susane Colasanti, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susane Colasanti until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Giovanni Norbert Piccolomni

Dear DGG! See my remark on the talkpage of the article. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Page rename

I don’t have page rename rights. Please can you rename Pandemic prevention to Pandemic preparedness and response. There is no way to predict or prevent pandemics. The notion goes against a substantial corpus of knowledge. CutePeach (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

And to also rename Pandemic predictions and preparations prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to COVID-19 pandemic preparedness and response please. CutePeach (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

do you think there is general agreement? is there a discussion? For the first, I'd suggest Pandemic preparedness. I'm not going to make any changes in this area without consensus; if it has not been discussed, I'll open the question. DGG ( talk ) 10:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I started discussions on each page but I wasn’t aware this was necessary for common sense changes. I once left a merger proposal on a page and nothing has been done since. CutePeach (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Potguide

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/Suspicious articles/16 October 2021

You speedied Potguide on 2 October, and the creator then made PotGuide on 13 October. It looks like they are spamming it into a bunch of articles now. I did some cleanup on it, but I don't care what happens next. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The worst of the material has been removed ,so it's no longer a G11, but it is still a promotional announcement. I left warning notices for advertising, paid editing, and spam links. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Arb request filed

People here may be interested in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Fringe science and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Luchy Donalds

I just now realised that there was an AFD for this article and it was deleted. Celestina007 was there too. Would you check if it is eligible for WP:G4? All save one film currently listed are claimed to be from 2021; I don't what films were listed during the AFD, but I doubt one can play that many films in a pandemic year if they are playing major roles.

I see that many apparent newbs have created this article in the past. This time it was created at a different title by an editor who was assigned my mentee. They came to me (see the three discussions beginning with User_talk:Usedtobecool/Archive_8#Question_from_Olugold_on_User:Olugold_(01:49,_1_October_2021)). I reckon Ipigott might have seen those if they are watching my page, and decided to help out; perhaps they will let us know if they have a strong opinion about this article's suitability. I will note that the editor seems to be in some hurry to get their articles reviewed/indexed and I see a familiar name (at least to Cel) accepting one of their drafts. I see coincidences but I am not yet ready to conclude anything, hence asking everyone here.

Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, Usedtobecoll. I don't think I saw your advice on this article on your talk page although I agree with most of what you say. I made similar suggestions and it seemed to me the article had been brought up to an acceptable standard. As you know, we are being encouraged to improve coverage of Africa. Hope I have not been stepping on your toes. If I remember correctly, I ran into Olugold as a new member of Women in Red. Thanks for pinging me.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Not at all, Ipigott. As i told them, I thought she ought to be notable if she's been in so many movies. I think the default assumption is and ought to be to AGF and support more coverage of underrepresented topics. FWIW, if this were an american with so many credits, of course she would be notable no matter how minor the roles were. My concerns are to do with whether the current article addresses the concerns raised at AFD, and the history here which raises a strong suspicion of UPE and socking, all of which I only just now became aware of. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I must say, I have become very wary of earlier deletions which prompt reviewers to dismiss any progress by new editors on a previously deleted biography or simply because individuals score new successes in their careers as time moves on. Newbies cannot be expected to be familiar with our case histories or indeed with our "preferences". This is just one of several recent articles which, if refused, could well have diminished a new contributor's interest in continuing to edit on Wikipedia. Please look out for similar cases as a mentor. Great to have come in touch with you. Hope we will meet again.--Ipigott (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The only practical way to deal with these is to refer them to an admin, as you are all doing now, because they can check the earlier version. I hope no admins are deleting G4s without checking. I don't see how its wrong to nominate them for deletion if they verify the deletion was by AfD, unless there are obvious new accomplishments, because a ed.who is not an admin would not be able to determine. The new article does not have to show notability to escape G4. It has only to be improved. To quote the policy: This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion.-- DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this article specifically, the one sent to AfD was wholly inadequate,and would not have passed AfD regardless of nationality,. The present one has several subsequnt films, and some awards, and probably would pass, again regardless of nationality. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool, DGG, I’m sorry I’ve been away, whilst I’m not currently checking nor commenting on notability, a comment made by UTBC & the initial hesitation I had when i saw the title of this article made me feel a little bit uncomfortable, to be honest something other than notability bothers me here, I would do a search within the hour and get back to you all. Celestina007 (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool, Okay, so we might looking at possible UPE, a possible deliberate effort on the part of the “subject of the article” to have a Wikipedia presence, & a very good PR but if we are to “comment on content” I think overall, a good BASIC argument could be made. This most definitely may not count but FWIW I'm a Nigerian movie head & I do not know who she is. UTBC I’m sending you a confidential email within the hour. Celestina007 (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have decided to leave the article as is, and WP:AGF with the editor for now. Thank you all for your comments. I have carefully considered each one. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Would Dr. Ira Gewolb be notable enough for Wikipedia?

Hello, I hope that you are doing well. Here is some information on Dr. Gewolb, who recently retired...

Dr. Ira Gewolb has served as tenured Professor and Chief of the Division of Neonatology and as Associate Chair for Research at MSU since 2004. Previously, he was tenured Professor and Chief of Neonatology at the University of Maryland (1989-2004). Before that, he was Associate Professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and Director of Newborn Services at Jacobi Hospital (1982-1989). He has been Neonatology Fellowship Program Director at both MSU and University of Maryland.

Dr. Gewolb is a member of the American Pediatric Society and the Society for Pediatric Research and was elected President of the Eastern Society for Pediatric Research (1996-1999). He has served on the board of directors for the Mid-Michigan March of Dimes. He holds 3 U.S. patents on probiotics and on a device to non-invasively diagnose gastroesophageal reflux in neonates. He has contributed ≈80 articles to the medical literature.

Taken from https://humanmedicine.msu.edu/MSUMEDNEWS/Retirements-Archive/2019-Retirements.htm

Yleventa2 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The relevant standard is is WP:PROF., and that is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject as demonstrated by citations to their work. check for citations to the person's papers. and write an article in draft. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I will do that, thanks Yleventa2 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Edwin W. Taylor

You did good work converting Edwin Taylor (biologist) from the draft. Unfortunately I just noticed there's already a (long-winded) article on the same person at Edwin W. Taylor. --Wire723 (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wire723, the situation is a little complicated--look at the edit history of both. I'm not entrely sure how to straighten it out. -- DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I submitted the Ira Gewolb draft article for review

What do you think? Draft:Ira Gewolb Yleventa2 (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Not from the information given. An encyclopedia article is not a CV. 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. This can be referenced to his CV Then a description of his research in a brief paragraph, with a reference. Next, 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 or 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. Use outside sources when possible. See WP:PROF for the standards. I mentioned it to you--now actually read it. I told you the part about the citations also: do what it says.

The advice I give is based upon my experience of what happens here in practice. I've given similar advice for many years; what I say is carefully worded, and you would do well to follow it. . It will not help you if you don't pay attention to it.

If you have any personal profesional or similar connection with him, read also WP:COI and follow its directions. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Crowther Lab and Thomas Crowther

Articles on a "tenure-track assistant professor" and his lab, what to do? Abductive (reasoning) 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

he's highly notable, though the article, apparently started as an autobiography but passed AfD in 2018, has been made murch more promotional since then and will need extensive trimming. An assistant professor who, like him, works in a field of great general interest can get enough citations for WP:PROF.

The article on his lab is another matter entirely--a terible precedent--I just placed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowther Lab. Abductive, thanks for letting me know -- DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 27 October

P.A.L.Chapman-Rietschi.

��� Multiple issues flagged.

Three seem to be: 1) additional citations in 'biography of a liiving person'. But from the text is it xlear that the subject is no longer alive. 2) information 'from a source too close to the subject', namely his co-worker and wife. As editor of one of the Publications cited, and no relastion. I am prepared to vouch for the value and neutrality of the subject's work. 3) The category 'astral sciences, marked as a link in red, thus not in your repertory of articles,is covered by the three other terms nerxt to it and the whole phrase 'ancient astral sciences' can with advantaged be deleted.2A02:1388:83:B22A:A48C:55FD:62A5:B1FF (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Dr Richard Witt, Secretary, International Association 'Cosmos & Philsoophy'.

given the mutiplepublications in major journals, I am not going to nominate for deletion.Probably meets WP:AUTHOR. It might clarify things to usethe reveiws o fthe books as foootnote references for the books. -- DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Equal Day Care

Hello DGG, you moved the article on 'Equal Care Day' back to draft status on July 29th, and noted the article reads like an advertisement. Can you please be more specific? Which aspect of the article reads like an ad? I essentially translated the article directly from the German, which apparently does not have this problem. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so thanks in advance for your patient explanation.  :-) Flipturner (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotional material is material addressed primarily notto the general reader, ,but the prospective customer, donor etc. The `promotional material in this case is the extensive discussion of the problem the organization seeks to solve, which should be discussed not here , but in the appropriate wikipedia articles on the problems. giving only links. . This article should be about the work of the organization.

The deWP is somewhat more tolerant in the area of prmotionalism and conflict of itnerest than the enWP. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, many thanks for the prompt and helpful explanation. That makes good sense. I will try editing the article accordingly. Flipturner (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Salvaging

You deleted an earlier version of Cheese sauce. Could you provide me the full text of that revision? Thanks!!! 26zhangi (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I rescued the title. The text was total nonsense. -- DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Suzanne Kianpour

Hi DGG, I was reviewing this draft about a journalist and while I do not think she meets WP:GNG, she was a fellow at the Georgetown University Institute of Politics (source [6]). Does that convey notability even though she is not necessarily an academic? Any guidance is appreciated. S0091 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

not unless she meets one of the requirements in WP:PROF.There is no iindication in the draft that she does. The position is not intrinsicallyt notable--it can mean any one of a number of different things. -- DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. I did not want to dismiss it if there was more to it than my understanding. S0091 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Race is not a phenotype

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

I use the lanaguage which is being used in the discussion. The case was named Race and Inteligence.

My own interest in these topics comes from a different area than education and a different geographic region.--I'm interested in the biological markers of population movement in Western Europe and the surrounding regions. Here also the ability to identify specific genes and genetic mutations at a very detailed level has radically revised the discusion: we can now measure what we used to guess. I hope knowledge will decrease prejudice, but that may just be a wish. -- DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The "language" in the discussion did not include any reference to "phenotype" until you decided to introduce that. I see this as one of the main problems with race realism. jps (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have misread my reply. I was never talking about race in any part of my posting until you brought it up; I then said it was relevant to Ferrango's comments. I've never said I endorsed them. Her interests are different from mine. The interest we share is a desire for WP to accurately describe current scientific thinking. I am like most of us, fully aware of the lack of biological basis for a group termed "Black" or "White'. I repeat once more,

it is impossible that there is any phenotype whatsoever of any living organism which is not subject to genetic selection , and consequently I know that all characteristics will be influenced by genetics. The real questions for any characteristic, for all living beings whatsoever, are to what extent there is a genetic influence, how exactly the influence works in terms of the physiology, and how it interacts with environment--these questions constitute the subject of biology. In the case of humans, or other social animals, this includes the social environment. In the case of humans, distinctively, it also includes the cultural environment, and these aspects constitute the social sciences. The only way it could be otherwise is if evolution does not apply to humans. There are those who do think so, and they are the true fringe.

I now specify, in a probably futile attemp tto avoid misunderstandings, that all of the differrent ways in which the vague term intelligence can be understood, is (or are) a complex phenotypic characteristic. The real interest here is the possibility of dissecting the true biological factors contributing to the various meanigs of the term, that is, the individual genes and the enzymes and structures they code for.

How all of this will interact with populations (or to use the currently fashionable term, geographies) is a further subject for investigation, and a socially and policaly much more sensitive one. The discussion of it will not be helped by charges of racism or racialism.

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

Amendment request: Fringe science (October 2021)

Hello:

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

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

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