User talk:DGG/Archive 182 Mar. 2022
ARCHIVES
DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG
Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD, Speedy & prod, NPP & AfC, COI & paid editors, BLP, Bilateral relations
Notability, Universities & academic people, Schools, Academic journals, Books & other publications
Sourcing, Fiction, In Popular Culture Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice
General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O
DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG
Administrators' newsletter – March 2022 edit
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
- A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
- The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
- Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
- The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)
Arbitration
- Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.
Miscellaneous
- The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
- Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
- The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment edit
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Extra-parliamentary 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 17:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment edit
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Volodymyr Zelenskyy on a "Biographies" 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 18:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Your kind advice: Draft:Richard Gaynor does this biography draft need AFC submission? edit
Dear User:DGG, your informal advice is kindly requested, as to whether -in your opinion- this biography Draft:Richard Gaynor definitely needs to go through AFC submission. Thank you very much. Signed, Neuralia. Neuralia (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, your work does not have to go through AfC--it's good enough for mainspace. . But I've made a few changes in your latest article, and will make a few more. See your user talk p. for specifics.
- But you're doing excellent work, as I think you realize. So, since I'm one the admins most frequently reviewing scientific bios, Ihope you won't mind if I offer further suggestions. They're just suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
- Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
- A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
- Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
- GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
- Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
similar username to yours edit
Hi DGG,
I just ran into edits from a User talk:DGGbg in my timeline. They made an account last year and while I haven't looked at any contributions they don't *seem* immediately nefarious. However, that's a very close name to yours so I wanted you to have a heads up about it. Protonk (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Protonk, My thinking is, at the very first sign or behavior that shows sketchy edits like vandalism, disruptive editing, we should warn them and proceed to watch them closely & if after being warned we observe dissent or anymore editing pattern that can be classified under WP:NOTHERE they should be indef blocked accordingly. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Request for some guidance on the review on K Intelligent Technologies Draft edit
In regards to the article you reviewed today, you left me a comment to not resubmit it. it was quite confusing since i have tried to follow the guidlines even add in more sources as requested. If better guidance is given even which type of notable sources that are needed in a draft. Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinKibs (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
similar username to yours edit
Hi DGG,
I just ran into edits from a User talk:DGGbg in my timeline. They made an account last year and while I haven't looked at any contributions they don't *seem* immediately nefarious. However, that's a very close name to yours so I wanted you to have a heads up about it. Protonk (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Protonk, My thinking is, at the very first sign or behavior that shows sketchy edits like vandalism, disruptive editing, we should warn them and proceed to watch them closely & if after being warned we observe dissent or anymore editing pattern that can be classified under WP:NOTHERE they should be indef blocked accordingly. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Request for some guidance on the review on K Intelligent Technologies Draft edit
In regards to the article you reviewed today, you left me a comment to not resubmit it. it was quite confusing since i have tried to follow the guidlines even add in more sources as requested. If better guidance is given even which type of notable sources that are needed in a draft. Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinKibs (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Rachel Meredith Kousser edit
Hello, DGG. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rachel Meredith Kousser".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Liz, I accepted the article--the draft should have been marked as a redirect--the macro must have skipped that part and I'll fix it. (But are we now notifying people after we delete at 6 months, instead of 1 month ahead as a warning? DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Targum Press redirection edit
Can I ask why you redirected TARGUM PRESS to the MENUCHA PUBLISHERS page? They are two separate companies.
The edits Charlie Smith did were objective and explained the history of the two companies very well -- since Targum Press as a separate company still exists the redirection hurts their business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akivaa (talk • contribs) 06:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment edit
Your feedback is requested at Talk:J. T. Edson on a "Biographies" 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 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Sandbox/Scott M. Fitzpatrick has been accepted edit
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Vincenzo Colucci has been accepted edit
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Promo account, Trolling and possible NOTHERE edit
I’m unsure what should be done here but I’d like for you to take a look. Please see this entry the ever gracious Deb has dealt with the promotional article but I’m wondering if more sanctions are required? Although Deb has been kind enough to warn them. However do let me know what you think. Celestina007 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Mar 27: Wiki-Tent Brunch in Brooklyn edit
| March 27, 11am-2pm: Wiki-Tent Brunch in Brooklyn | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join us for a planned outdoor gathering between the local Wikimedia NYC community and visitors from the global Wikimedia Foundation at Sahadi's tent in Brooklyn's Industry City. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello and request for guidance edit
Hello DGG, I saw that you made several comments about faculty members at universities, and you always seem helpful to (relatively) new Wikipedia contributors when you are making comments. I have a question, and I can't see to find the answer to it. I hope that you might know the answer. (I promise that I am not spamming users with this question; I happened to have been reading several nice comments that you made about professors--and I am a professor--so I thought I would ask you if you know.) Here's the question. When I click on my Watchlist, at the top of the page, it says "A request for adminship is open for discussion." I don't know what that means. Does it mean that somebody is requesting that I should become an administrator? I did not make such a request myself.... but now I am curious what this means. I see this sentence at the top of my Watchlist. Thank you very much for considering this question! I have only been making edits on Wikipedia for a couple years, but I love editorial work (and I am a professor, as I mentioned). I would welcome your advice, please. Thanks in advance for any insights that you can offer. MDW333 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi and welcome, MDW333! When an editor is nominated for adminship, we all see a notice on our watchlists. If you click the portion that says request for adminship, it will take you to that editor's nomination page. You can review their answers to questions and, if you want, support or oppose their nomination. Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Schazjmd, thank you very much! That is really helpful! I appreciate you helping me to learn about this! Thank you! I will go take a look! OK, while I am asking naive questions, please may I ask another question? I have been working (a little bit at a time) on this Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flajolet_Lecture_Prize and now I would love some feedback. Is it appropriate to ask users like you Schazjmd (and also, of course, DGG) for feedback on such pages? At the start, this entry was quickly rejected, but I also quickly realized that I did not understand how to make a good Wikipedia page. I believe that now, one year after I started, it should be ready for re-consideration. Would you please be willing to take a look and offer feedback? Is it appropriate to ask such a question? (Again, I promise that I am not spamming anybody with such questions. Even though this is a random question, I was just asking DGG because of the nice feedback I saw for professors, and I haven't asked anybody for feedback on this page in the last several months.) Thanks for considering! MDW333 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I will help any good faith editor who asks, though I might not give exactly the advice you are looking for. A prize is considered notable here , because of third party references made to its awards (the way we officially judge) and because the people awarded by the prize are all very notable (not a formal standard, but it very much helps). In this case the people are all extremely notable, but the references are all from the awarding organization or the recipients' institutions. You should try very hard to see if you can find references to it in publications of other organizations in the field.(And in your references, format them so it is clear where they come from) I would personally accept it based on the recipients alone, but the community probably will insist on the references, and they're the ones who decide. After you do that, remove all adjective and expressions of praise, do not compare it to a much better known award in the same general field,and resubmit. MDW333, if, but only if, you can find two good third party references, it should have no problems. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- DGG, thank you very much for the quick reply. This is really insightful. I am learning a lot! OK, thank you, let me work on these aspects of the page. I truly appreciate your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDW333 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- DGG I apologize for filling up your "talk" page. I'll move this discussion over to the talk page I mentioned! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flajolet_Lecture_Prize MDW333 (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Just FYI, DGG, I worked hard on the draft page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flajolet_Lecture_Prize and I just resubmitted it for (hopeful) approval. Thanks again for your helpful feedback! I appreciate your insights. MDW333 (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- DGG, OK, it is safe to ignore my post now. I worked hard on the draft page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flajolet_Lecture_Prize and it is approved and published now. Thanks! MDW333 (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Help edit
DGG, I have had somebody named FoCuSandLeArN complain in talk about a page about my Father. That person was blocked the next day from editing Wikipedia pages, but soon after that you removed all of the family information from the page and I reverted it. Soon after that 50.206.176.154 (who has also been told not to edit biographical pages) reverted the page again. Please explain why the content was remove in the first place. If it was to appease FoCuSandLeArN why wasn't the modification a little less severe? Allyn Shell (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
`Allyn Shell, the article belongs in the encycopedia because Donald Shell is very notable for his work. The article must be designed for the general reader who is interested in the man behind the name; but nobody except his own relatives will be interested in the family. We give the name of the spouse(s) and the number of children and stop there. I am reverting again; if you insist on it, it's likely to be considered disruptive. The previous editor was blocked for unrelated reasons, doing paid editing without declaring it, but what he did in this case was correct. It is never a good idea to edit an article on one's immediate family. but it is good that you were upfront about it. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Isn't the fact that he cared for Alice for more than six years and Virginia for almost ten year considered significant? And that his two sons by his first marriage followed him into Computer Science and Medicine considered significant? Allyn Shell (talk) 2601:155:4301:CB00:D1E7:5619:6A53:3B9F (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Signifcant to his family. Why would it be significant to anyone else in the world, such as a reader of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
| Online and in-person events | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join us for:
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Peter J. Rentfrow edit
Hello, DGG. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Peter J. Rentfrow, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 49 edit
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022
- New library collections
- Blog post published detailing technical improvements
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
"Management Services Organization" listed at Redirects for discussion edit
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Management Services Organization and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#Management Services Organization until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)