User talk:DGG/Archive 104 Sep. 2015

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

Please comment on Talk:Conduit (company)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conduit (company). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Draft:Natural History Society of South Australia

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable local article[edit]

I am sorry that for a second time you have deleted an article which was in the early stages, being the 'Strickland Foundation'. After this deletion I am considering to stop giving my free time to contribute to wikipedia. You have given no real reason which are not personally based. It is likely that anything notable in another country but not in USA is deleted by you. I wonder how local people in Malta can use Wikipedia and find relevant information with you deletion all the time. Get back to be and consider bring back my two article which you deleted. I am resting from editing unless you clear your reasoning. Please dont be cheap in your reasoning like the first article which you deleted, once again. I have went through Wikipedians who added wikiproject Malta and noticed their reasoning for not continuing. It is tragic that deletion for no real reason is the main one. Continentaleurope (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Continentaleurope Continentaleurope (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continentaleurope I merely nominated it; another admin agreed and did the deletion. I never (well, almost never) delete articles single-handed, but wait for another experienced person to confirm or to nominate. Though I marked it for lacking encyclopedic significance, I really should have marked it for hopelessly promotional as well. (e.g. "On her retirement Mabel Strickland decided to establish the Strickland Foundation for the common good of the Maltese people" and extensive similar content) The main reference in the article was the Times of Malta, but what it actually linked to was an independent press release from the Foundation itself posted on the newspaper's site. Checking that document again, I see that the article could equally well have been deleted as Copyright violation, as it is an extremely close paraphrase. At the time it was nominated, you had already had a full day to work on it. Nothing prevents you from trying again with a proper article. Much of your editing is excellent editing on notable Maltese historical structures, though some of it is borderline: Ramon Casha is overly promotional and borderline notable, and University Students' Council (Malta) has extensive non-encyclopedic content. I shall deal with both of them as appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Continentaleurope: I would also add that this sentence is complete hogwash: "It is likely that anything notable in another country but not in USA is deleted by you". I have experienced many occasions where DGG has argued for the retention and inclusion on Wikipedia of articles about non-USA people, non-USA places or non-USA geographical features where existing Wikipedia consensus on the notability of the topic is clear. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also argued whenever feasible for even poorly sourced articles on clearly important subjects from areas or topic areas where better sources are not likely to be available; the consensus is not always with me on these. What I will not argue for is minor organizations in areas where people are trying for disproportionate coverage of a local area. What I will now always argue against is subjects of borderline notability having clearly promotional articles. A few years ago I would try to rewrite them, but at this point in Wikipedia the need to remove promotionalism is our highest priority in considering articles. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for creating Strickland Foundation article is because it is an important foundation for journalism in Malta, has historical values, it is at Villa Parisio, and many academic literature refer to it, as an inclusive norm to know about at a higher education. Ramon Casha, an argument if he is notable - well he appears on tv, all stations, he is a human rights and political activist, a distinct personality, to show that secularist exist in Malta and is am important topic to wiki project Malta. However if you wish to creat an article about secularism in Malta and absorb the Ramon Casha article in it i will support it in that sense. Article like Religion in Malta or Christianity in Malta are in name not appropriate for people who look for secular values in Malta. Even so an article about secularism has to be created, some links to personalities should be retained for forther knowledge, and support of article itself. The mobement is gaining quite momentum recently with equal rights to religions and irreligion in Malta.

I was upset about the deletion of Strickland Foundation as there was no concensus and was deleted overnight. Could it be possible to retrieve information and put it under a section under Mabel Strickland?

The KSU article about students it is not my creation but i tried to improve it as it was promoting a one-sided political organization. For many reasons it is better to keep it and ask to further expand as it lack the real activities. It is the oldest student organization of which local politicians were invloved in, and even was crucial for a European level organizations. It is good to have a background about students organizations in Malta of which exist of the USA as well. Continentaleurope (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC) thanks for contacting me and for appreciating some of my work.[reply]

You already did add the information to the Mabel Strickland articl, a further sentence might be possible; I will email you draft later today. But as it stands is blatant promotionalism, and I will list it for deletion as such unless you fix it. Section 3 is unsourced; section 4 is both inappropriate and unsourced but apparently based on a link to a website called http://www.joanalexander.co.uk/, which I cannot find and therefore cannot judge. She is notable because of her election to the Maltese Parliament, so that should be sourcable from an official source. Of course, promotionalism is an even more important reason for deletion than notability.

If you think KSU can be written properly, try a draft. You'll of course need reliable 3rd party sources for the claims to importance. Casha will be decided by the community. DGG ( talk ) 13:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) (eventually, it was deleted at AfD)[reply]

I think I can better understand now what sounds promotional and what is notable. I will try to avoid it next time. Thanks for explaining. I did nit creat Mabel Strickland article but literature to support the article exist as it is in Maltese political history, including her relation to Queen Elizabeth. Yet much of this info is short of missing here.

Just to make it a point that I am not trying to promote anything. As you well know my articles are generally about structures and wish to keep to that unless you wish to suggest any articles that you want me to consider relating to Malta.

I think I did not access that website. Are you sure that was my edit? I will check. Thanks :) Continentaleurope (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A.J.Joshi[edit]

I'd like you to take a look at this. Flawless (almost) right down to the neat links. Posted to the Wikipedia in one single edit, the first of a 'new' user. But there's something about those sources...--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's nice and neat, that's because he has had practice: previous tries include AJ Joshi (deleted at AfD), and A.J. Joshi. This is one of the clients of the WP:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody sockfarm. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and those neat links are almost entirely to totally unusable sources. that's characteristic of the farm, though of course not just of them. We're still trying to find out who the controlling figure is, and how far back they go. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just blocked User talk:Clintric but although I have read all the Orangemoody pages linked above I'm not sre what lists to add this too. It seems there is only provision for check user blocks. Clintric is an obvious duck so I haven't added it to SPI anywhere.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs[edit]

King Solomon International Business School[edit]

Hello, You have nominated this page for deletion. I think that I understand why but I am not sure. Is there a way that I can re-create this page but with a different text. A text that would not be taken from another website? Many thanks for your guidance. Regards. Cyblexy (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use the WP:Article Wizard. When ready for it to be reviewed, let me know. In rewriting it, be sure to avoid copying or close paraphrase, but also avoid promotionalism. I deleted it for that reason also. An encycopedia article is addressed to the general public, not current or prospective students. It says what people may want to know, not what the school may want to tell them. Avoid such meaningless praise as " to prepare young people to take their place in the modern world and help them develop into well rounded, achieving and caring individuals who fulfil their full potential and actively contribute to the well-being of others." Every school in the world can -- and does -- say that. Avoid describing the Woodward foundation each time you write on one of their schools--just link to their article.

I also need to ask if you by any chance have some business connection with the schools you write about. If so, you need to declare it. See our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HappyFunCorp[edit]

Hi DGG. You nominated this page for deletion. I wanted to see if you'd be willing to help me make this article as neutral as possible. HappyFunCorp is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page as the guidelines stand. That being said, I am new to Wikipedia and don't have the experience you have. I'd like to help remove any promotional content, and still keep HappyFunCorp's page up - I wrote the article with the intention of writing a fact-based, neutral article on a company. Will you help me? Cheers Imarapaholic (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I merely suggested it for deletion: consensus will decide. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Project Management Association[edit]

Hi DGG, could you review the make-over of the International Project Management Association today, and take some appropriate action if needed. CIO, OR, Advert, and/or primary sources tags seem to fit, but personally I am puzzled, who to deal with this kind of updates. Could you help me out here, maybe just with some advice? -- Mdd (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fascinating. Obvious COI source taking an inconspicuous factual article that (even tho it had no 3rd party sources for notability) would never have been noticed, and turning it into a absurdly over-detailed promotional press release.See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Project Management Association DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested[edit]

A while back you mentioned the National Book Award was a prominent exception to WP:ORGAWARDS in that even being nominated was considered noteworthy. I'm working on the page on Gail Godwin, who has chaired the fiction panel of the award committee and has authored four books that were considered for the award. Her books being involved in these awards is a prominent aspect of many independent biographies on her.

Her assistant told me that being nominated was trivial (the publisher just submits a nomination), and what was significant was her books being finalists. The Los Angeles Times just says her books were nominated, whereas the National Book Awards website itself does say they were finalist.[1][2][3] NPR also says finalist, but then the Dictionary of Literary Biographies says nominated at the top, then says finalist when describing individual books. USA Today says nominated.

I was wondering if you had any contextual knowledge about this particular award or input on the conflict between sources. I am leaning towards using the National Book Award website as a primary source that is most likely to be accurate, given that secondary sources eliminate weight concerns. It's a minor issue, but given that awards are a frequent COI concern, I want to get it right. CorporateM (Talk) 15:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What her assistant said is correct, and our WP article on National Book Award also explains it: hundreds of books get nominated--any publisher can nominates as many as they please. In the 2013 procedure, each of the 4 categories is winnowed own by a panel to a long list of 10, a short list of 5, and then a winner. The books on the short list are called Finalists, and get a prize; the winner gets a much bigger prize. By analogy with other similar awards, winning is notable, being a finalist contributes to notability, being nominated is not even worth mentioning. If the NBA site lists them as finalists, they're finalists--we usually regard the award site as authoritative. DLB's text is considered reliable--its headlines are, as usual with headlines, summaries & simplifications. Headlines never take precedence over the text, here or anywhere. USA Today, LA Times etc. are dependent on the actual source of data, and less reliable. Neither of them is really a RS for published books. (The LATimes is a RS for film). This is one of the cases where the PS is more reliable than any report of it. What must be avoided is using any statements on Amazon or the publisher's sites as evidence for anything at all; they both often list awards & best seller status in the most positive terms they can concoct. Pre 2013, there was no list of 10, just the short list of finalists and the winner.

Looking at the article, the most important thing is to source exactly each book placed on the NYT bestseller list,and specify the number of weeks, and the highest position. Just as the NBA site is the most RS for their awards, the NYT itself is the most RS for being on the list. We normally regard being on the main fiction/nonfiction NYT lists as notability. I see from WCat that there are multiple translations of some of the books; I usually find the title of each, and include them. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Happy to be Fat is currently up for deletion[edit]

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2008. --Iamozy (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Boxer Wachler (2nd nomination) Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Cleanup - Removing Notices from Page[edit]

Is it possible to remove the notices at the top of Randy Gage's article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Gage If not, what needs to be done and who can do that? Thanks for your help! TriJenn (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked for a whileThe COI notice will stay on as long as you have been the main contributor. I hadn't looked for a while, and I've also added a POV tag based on the inclusion of the self published books and the viewpoints section, which in the edit history you justify by comparing it to another article, one on someone more notable, but with similar problems. If you want those sections removed, ask me. As for notability, other people have challenged it; I defended it, but it might not pass AfD nowadays, that people are using the argument that borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 12:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. When you remove the Viewpoints section, you remove much of the notable press - Inc., Success, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, and more. Why wouldn't a thought leader have a Viewpoints section? His thoughts/viewpoints are what he is known for. As for the books published by Prime Concepts Group, these are not self published. Prime Concepts Group published them. He is not an owner of that company. And, they are real books, not brochures (as you had referred to them previously). TriJenn (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primce Concepts Group is not a publisher, but a marketing concern. I'll check the other material. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this edit [4]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

It appears you are editing an old version of the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

I did not make that edit deliberately; it is apparently a side effect of another edit I made, and I will fix it if someone hasn;t gotten there before me. Thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk ) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC) . DGG ( talk ) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

I noticed you reverted, but this content has been lost. You may want to reintroduce it under a new topic at WP:COIN or something. — Brianhe (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

− −

SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup[edit]

− − Hi DGG

− − For my own reference, can you please send me the page you rejected about the SNIA Long-term Retention Technical Workgroup? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNIA_Long_Term_Retention_TWG&action=edit&redlink=1).

− − My e-mail address has already been confirmed so you should be good to send it now :) Thanks

− − Phillipviana (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

− −

AfDs again[edit]

− −

Dr. Wachler[edit]

David, I send you a couple of emails to your .edu If you have a moment to check, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. JJ Jjacksoneverst (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog bias editing[edit]

David, you are a respected editor. Regarding the Dr. Wachler discussion, I would appreciate if you would look at my talk page with Jytdog and also please look at Jytdog's talk page. Jytdog has been criticized in the past for biased editing by others. I believe there is now evidence of the same occuring regarding the deletion discussion of Dr. Wachler's article. Thank you very kindly in advance. JJ Jjacksoneverst (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given my opinion of the article in question at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Boxer Wachler (2nd nomination)]], where I said that he might well be notable, but the article is so promotional that it must be deleted and started over. Every experienced editor but 1has also said to delete; and except for that one editor, everyone arguing for keep is a single purpose account. I'm also aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bennydarko, where DocJames added you as a possible sockpuppet. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the only experienced editor (so far) who voted keep at the AFD in question, I want to ask: what makes the article promotional in its current state? It's only 4 sentences long. Everymorning (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You anticipated me; I was about to ask you to review your opinions. See the earlier versions (or , for that matter, the material the ed. I was replying to posted on your talk p.) The remaining nonpromotional material does not show notability DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Veldhuis[edit]

Can you please restore this article plus talk page or userfy it and I'll work on it. This is a notable poker player $600,000 in earnings and is a sponsored professional of Team PokerStars. I will add some sources [5], [6], and [7]. Those are just a few sources he has received significant coverage in. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to Draft:Lex Veldhuis. The talk p. was blank except for the form notice that it was a blp. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Government Online[edit]

− − Hi DGG, you removed the spam tag and say it's not so promotional. That's okay, maybe I need a better tagging for the article, it has zero reference, excepts the reference to itself, which I learned from other articles is in general problematic. Thanks for your advise! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

the two tags on the article are the right ones: the one questioning notability ,and the one asking for better references. The citation needed tags are also correct. If the article is not improved after a while, the proper course is to first check for sources yourself, then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

− −

Douglas al-Bazi wrt to BLP DS[edit]

− − I hate to sound like I'm canvassing, but I really feel that removing failed verification templates from a BLP and claiming the sources are fine (and misleading another user in the process) are BLP DS items. I've got an ANI on the user (which has comment without action) but since User:Slakr posted the sanction notices therein, I brought this up to Slakr on his talk, with specific evidence of the removal being contrary to the actual source content, and still haven't gotten action there either. All I'm asking for is eyes on at least part of an ongoing problem which has been verified by three other editors on ANI. MSJapan (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

If the article is not kept, all this will be moot. I see EMG has entered into discussion at the usertalk page you mention. One of the side effects of being on arb com is that it's unwise to get involved in things that might potentially come there. In any case, I've never worked at DS. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

OK; I was merely trying to find an uninvolved and experienced admin, and you do seem to have a good idea when it comes to BLP. Also, while the substance of the edits might be moot in a deleted article, it's the editing behavior behind it that I feel needs to be addressed. I'm really trying to avoid ArbCom, because it just pushes resolution out further. While engagement has occurred, no admission of fault has happened; in fact, just the opposite seems to have happened, which in fact points to EMG not having read the sources he added, which is sort of my whole point. MSJapan (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

Absolutely, avoid arbcom. Before I joined arb com, I always advised people to avoid going there; now I know more about it, I would emphasise this advice even more strongly. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

AArrow Advertising[edit]

− − FYI: I've blocked the COI artist and tagged the article G11. Might not be an Orangemoody but has all the classic traits of someone trying too hard to promote their company. I don't waste time on articles like these but if I'm wrong feel free to revert. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Draft:Bangladesh International School, English Section, Jeddah

Draft:Chris Hoofnagle

Draft:Dick Carlson

Draft:Journal of Language and Literacy Education

Draft:Peelay Pattar

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you close a merge discussion that's been open nearly a year?[edit]

Talk:Hollie_Steel#Merger_proposal Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essay[edit]

I want WP:ALTEXPAND deleted since it's undermaintained and horribly out of date. {{Expand}} was deprecated ages ago, so I doubt anyone's looking for "alternatives" to it anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), Perhaps then it should be expanded/updated and retitled; it was good material--we shouldn't lose it. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mail[edit]

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Speedy Deletion of TECOM Group[edit]

Hi, I have reinstated the article and amended it to be more neutral. Please let me know if you still feel its marketing orientated. Thanks T Tobias mills (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias mills, try submitting it to WP:AFC, but without the list of the board of directors , without the list of officials of the company (include only the CEO), & with third party refs more substantial than mere notices. Furthermore, there is no information on that page of encyclopedic significance thta is not already on the page for the parent company; I'm going to make a direct to Dubai Holdings, and protect it. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contribution, there's one other thing I must ask you to do: Please check WP:COIa and also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG Thanks for your message, i just saw this and wanted to respond. I am gathering more information regarding TECOM Group which i was going to put up but wanted to create the page first. How do i do this now? I will definately read the links you have sent through and appreciate the time to respond with the information. Thanks again.

Tobias mills (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias mills, The way to do it is to use WP:AFC, and the best way to access that is through the WP:Article Wizard. But, since you have predominently edited articles pertaining to this group of companies it's reasonable to think you have a conflict of interest. Therefore, before you do that you MUST disclose any conflict of interest on your user page or user talk page,as explained above.

Considering that Tecom is a subsidiary of Dubai holdings, and the article on them is merely an outline, it might make sense to add information to that article. If you have a conflict of interest, you do that by proposing material you would like to add on the article's talk page, and adding a line reading {{request edit}} . Rememeber that in any case you need references from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answers[edit]

Why was my question about David Menkin removed???? I never got an answer on anything. Please reply :) --ACase0000 (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what happened, but you asked

I found some maybe refs: 1, 2 Tell me what you think. :) --ACase0000 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)--[reply]

and I answered:

what is the full link for that amazon link? Amazon is not usually an acceptable reference. And the first link shows what he did, but doesnt prove improtance any more thna does IMdB. But list those refs at the AfD so others can consider them. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for answering. :) I meant for the Amazon link /david-menkin .

I am sorry for any trouble. :) --ACase0000 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC[edit]

Wednesday September 16, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project!

We hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

Wednesday September 16 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com).

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus events, RSVP now for our latest upcoming editathons:

September 20 - Afrocrowd Wikipedia editathon @ Queens Library
October 3 - WikiArte Latin America editathon @ MoMA
October 15 - Women in Architecture editathon @ Guggenheim

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Brewpub Spiż[edit]

Please restore the article. This is not a commercial ad! Please see which breweries have their articles: List of microbreweries

In Wrocław, there are two pubs very close to each other, which are often mistaken for each other. Also I write an article about the latter: Cellar Świdnicka - one of the oldest restaurants in Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.9.4.202 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

certainly not. You had not a single source except its own website. If there are equally bad articles in the list, the need to be removed also. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TOBA Inc. Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hello, I have amended the TOBA Inc. page to include more substantial information regarding the company from a wider variety of sources. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article.Kmaybronco (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list[edit]

− − Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BiH[edit]

Hi DGG, the blocked sock editor on AdSparx - did I miss that it was an Orangemoody account? Widefox; talk 03:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is not totally clear at this point what is or is not orangemoody. I (and some others) have for some time thought there were more than one individual, who may or may or may not not have been coordinated. Since the complaints from defrauded users have only started coming in this year, but the know-how for making deceptively good-looking but fundamentally unsound articles would have needed considerable WP experience, my guess is that it's an ordinary editing ring that got a bright idea for how to encourage business, and that we are nowhere near finding the source of this. (Let alone the possibility that there may now be imitators).

As long as we maintain the principle of anonymity, we cannot stop sockpuppets and deceptive editing. What we can do is what we should have been doing from the very beginning, which is looking much more critically at articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit slow (having not followed Orangemoody), but yes, luckily I left a message on BiH's talk...drum roll...the (only major) other editor of AdSparx was User:Arr4 - a blocked sock of Orangemoody. Maybe Orangemoody picked up the same customer? However, the "coincidence" may be worth checking (07:55, 3 July 2015 User account Orangemoody was created) BiH (presumably Bosnian in Herzegovina) has 20k edits, created 2005-09-03. Widefox; talk 04:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this is exactly the way in which we work backwards to find additional instances. I'm following it up. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tip landed on my talk (some may consider it an OUTING). BiH has minor edited Joel Comm. One wouldn't expect anything else, but there's a sockfarm clustered around that article. As he appears to be notable, any linking to that person may just be due to fan activity. (time goes by...) That caveat/caution aside, BiH created Morgan James Publishing. User:Riathamus000 (allegedly COI on Joel Comm) edited within days (yes to insert their COI, but later to promote the publishing house). How would that account know it's been created so soon? coordination? Needs more checking. Widefox; talk 12:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Comm, and adjacent afds. I'm always glad to look at an article, but to follow up on editor connections, the place to go is SPI, where they can be kept track of in a centralized manner. The recognition of connection depends not just on edit histories, but edit mannerisms, and it really helps to keep them in one place. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circle speedy decline[edit]

Hey DGG. I just declined your speedy on Circle (company). If you still feel there is a notability question for this company, then no prejudice to sending the article to AFD for discussions. Cheers and happy editing! -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle (company) DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter H. Lin[edit]

You may want to have a look at this article and to its history. --Randykitty (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

citations are 500, 270, 170, 150 ... , so he's notable, even allowing for the very high citation rate in this area. Even tho its an autobiography, what it needs is rewriting. Once upon a time, I would unhesitatingly rewrite all articles like this, but in the last year or so the number that need doing has escalated to the point where I only do it if it is in my area of interest, it is easy to do, and the article is not hopelessly corrupt otherwise. This articles is a summary of his outrageously self-praising website even by the abyssmal standards for such websites, http://www.drpeterlin.com/dr.-lin2.html , but not close enough to be a copyvio. It's not even a competent summary, because it leaves out some of the actual encyclopedic information, such as the dates of his positions, and makes no attempt to select the most important among the publications.

As we have now learned we need to do, I checked some of the refs. That he was clinical advisor to the bill is referenced to the Senator's web site, but isn't stated there. Some of the rest are also ambiguous. It's implied he developed EKOS--he did not, a/c the references--he merely uses it. And a Reuters article referred to in this connection is not an article, but a press release on their site.

For an analogous case, by a known paid editor, see John Wesson Ashford, where I just removed the minor and stuff and unproven claims to be first in something. He , too, has very high citations.

I am holding off going further until I can decide what I want to do in such cases. I don't want to punish notable people for being naive enough to write their own article or use a paid editor, but I equally don't see why they should get priority for rewriting before all the even more notable people whom we are missing. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking paid editing more than autobio, given the contributors' names (and didn't look into notability myself, as I have no time right now). You're right that it's not egregiously promotional. I removed some of the minor awards. If only those paid editors could get it through their heads that it is far more effective to write a really encyclopedic, neutral article... --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a group of editors. Look at the main editors and the other articles they have edited. All related.

JeremyKai4077 (talk · contribs) created 9/10/2015
Garfield4407 (talk · contribs) created 9/9/2015

John.freeman.2010 (talk · contribs) created 9/8/2015 (also see their talk page about an article that was speedied)
Also note that JeremyKai4077 and John.freeman.2010 have also the exact same user page.

Possibly some paid editing? At the least this group has a very narrow focus. Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously encountered obvious but undeclared paid editing devoted to a particular medical specialty, and to other groups of individuals, or companies in the same field, where I assume it was a PR company specializing in the field or working for a trade association. I have frequently encountered it for people in the same or related company, where it has sometimes not been an outside PR firm, but the employer: sometimes in-house PR staff, but sometimes a department manager or the like acting on his own initiative.

Experience has unfortunately shown that most (but not all) people with experience in PR cannot be taught to write a proper article, because they are so completely oriented to writing advertisements or quasi-adevertisements that they honestly cannot see the difference between that an a proper encycopedia article. Declared paid editors here whom I trust have told me they need to turn down most clients, because the clients even if notable will not accept a NPOV article. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of countries by real GDP growth rate[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of countries by real GDP growth rate. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Draft:Khalid Boudrari

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of The Galleria, Al Maryah Island[edit]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on The Galleria, Al Maryah Island. I do not think that The Galleria, Al Maryah Island fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because This is an article about a physical location, not a company, so not eligible for A7. I request that you consider not re-tagging The Galleria, Al Maryah Island for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. Might be promotional enough to speedy, but I think Prod or AfD will be needed here. DES ^(talk) 16:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider a shopping mall a company, not a place, but afd will do fine. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Galleria, Al Maryah Island DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DnsMadeEasy[edit]

Draft:DNS Made Easy, up for MfD, was created in main space as DnsMadeEasy. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:DNS Made Easy was recreated yesterday 16 September by Xandios, a new account. Oddly they had edited DNS Made Easy in main space on 15 September. The recreation might just be a good faith mistake, and I invited them to contact me, if they need help. Still, why this fourth account? I tried to have a look, but I think it's better left to someone who can see deleted edits.

The four relevant accounts are:

ZippyCycle (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) - created in 2007; sandbox is an article draft
Ebmckee (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) - created 19 May
Wikimoze (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) - created 9 September
Xandios (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) - created 15 September

-- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC) (please

mention me on reply)[reply]

Sam Sailor, I'm not associated with those two other accounts. Article looks now according to wiki policies but if you feel something is not correct in article please edit on it. ThanksXandios (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC) (I reorganized this to say what I think Xandios intended DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing?[edit]

Can you take a look at Shelbourne Development Group pease.Particularly the history. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelbourne Development Group. I see you tried to fix it in 2011, but by our current standards, it isn't worth fixing. Undoubtedly paid editing, but as its an old SPA, there's nothing to track further. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another: 8x8. Clearly too good to be true due to the perfectly formatted refs. I came across it while building up a case for SPI because many of these users have edited each others articles or voted on each others AfDs. Perhaps I should block them anyway without SPI, but I don't want to abuse the use of y tools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's only a little I would fix. I would be quite happy if all paid editing reached this standard. Take a look at some of its competitors, Genband, which is considerably inferior, and Bridgewater Systems which is particularly awful. I do not think there is one person writing these for the industry (as there is in some areas, some as specialist paid eds, some as PR staff of a trade organization), or that they are puppets in the usual sense. (btw one of the ip Genband eds. identified themselves as a company rep in the article history, Feb 21, 2014. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baltikums Bank[edit]

I'm writing about recent deletion of the topic Baltikums Bank (english) version. There were no any signs of advertisement on the page. Only infomration about company (e.g. comparing to Rietumu Banka our page has same sections and only references to bank report on bank page and on Latvian Bank Association). Could you point exact sentense that would advertise the bank? I'm here only to enter information for people researching bank of latvia. There are a lot of information about other companies on wikipedia and no pages are deleted. Same was with previous version of the page. It was deleted because was not formatted properly or what? That version was still editor version and while I have been fixing formatting it has been deleted. I still have the source code and don't see any advertisements there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltikums wiki (talk • contribs) 07:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of lines of business, all of them perfectly standard for any bank, is not encyclopedic information and belongs only on your web page. In addition , there was no reason given to assume the bank would be notable. You'll need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Furthermore, your name implies you have a WP:Conflict of Interest--I remind you of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure \. If you have references to make an article, please do it via WP:AFC using the WP:Article Wizard. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G.G. Galloway[edit]

Can you please clarify why you deleted the page of G.G. Galloway? He is a candidate for congress and it is very relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.146.127.47 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify why you deleted the page of G.G. Galloway? He is a candidate for congress and it is very relevant ~allevajoseph~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allevajoseph (talk • contribs) 18:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

107.146.127.47:

1) He is merely a candidate for the nomination of his party for congress. Even if he wins the nomination, according to WP:POLITICIAN, that still does not make him notable. He will be if he wins the election. In addition, the article was copied from a press release on capitalsoup.com, which is not permitted. And, as would be expected or a press release, it was promotional. 2)I remind you of our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest, including our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure . If he does win the election, and you have a COI, submit the article at WP:AFC. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G.G. Galloway He is not Merely a candidate for congress. He is a commercial real estate broker who has deep ties to the area he lives and many accomplishments as you can see from the many many news outlets that published something about the announcement of his candidacy. This is not self promotion at all, as I do not work for G.G. Galloway, this is informing the public about all the candidates in the race. Another candidate Sandy Adams has a Wikipedia page and is ONLY a candidate for the same office. I advise looking over her page. If you allow her to have a page it would be highly discriminatory and against the law for Wikipedia to promote one candidate by allowing them to have a page while not allowing another candidate to have a page. Allevajoseph (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

has he won a national-level award from a major professional organization as a real-estate broker? Is he president of the major national organization in the subject? If so, he'll probably be considered notable, but it's not likely otherwise. Sandy Adams already has held a national-level political position, and thus qualifies for an article according to our rule WP:Politician . I just checked the article to see if it was too promotional, but it isn't. it's not promotional. WP is not an election guide, but an encycopedia that covers people already notable, not those still trying to become notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allevajoseph, there is an (unrelated -- the similar name is a coincidence) project that is closer to what you are after, see http://ballotpedia.org/Florida%27s_6th_Congressional_District_election,_2016 , in particular they have a bit about "If you see a name of a candidate who is missing, please email us and we will add that name". I work the political articles here on wikipedia, and ballotpedia is a good source for election-guide-material. There are several other such websites as well. Candidates that are going up against incumbents always have an uphill battle, and part of that is getting access to sufficient media-coverage to compete. Galloway will probably not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN until and unless they have been actually elected to state or national office -- fortunately or unfortunately, that is the way wikipedia works. Frankly, though, not having a wikipedia page is almost an advantage in 2016: look at how well Ben Carson and Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina are doing in the presidential race, because they are the non-politician-outsiders. Galloway might be able to capitalize on this widespread sentiment. Anyways, there is an article about the election, here on wikipedia, where all candidates ought be listed, see United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Florida,_2016#District_6 -- and indeed Galloway is already on the list. If the campaign gets endorsements, that are reported by newspapers/teevee/etc (see WP:SOURCES) then you can get those reliably-sourced-endorsements added to the section of that page (see the bluebox for Sandy Adams already listed there). Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing (2)[edit]

Please also see #Paid editing above. Please see User:BiH, in particular the dozens of declarations of paid editing through Upwork. This seems to fulfill the requirement for declaring COI/Paid advocacy but it's possible that of these articles some may still need to be deleted (I haven't checked yet - maybe you have already). I will shortly be lodging an SPI but although I'm not actually sure the accounts are connected the coincidence is high and there are several Single Purpose Accounts that would otherwise not have known about the articles at AfD. So I will be starting the SPI with BiH as the master account. As always, whatever our ToU and COI rules are, I'm extremely saddened that people exploit the millions of voluntary hours creating this encyclopedia to make money out of it in any shape or form whatever.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I have blocked BiH, but I do wish it to be understood that this is not because of my opinion concerning paid eediting, but due to the number of their creations that have already been deleted or are currently under deletion discussion. If you believe that the block was undue, please do not hesitate to revert it based on this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realise that BiH is banned as well. If this is the case, all his articles can be deleted without any further ado. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My block of BiH was perfectly legitimate - it was following a consensus at ANI. Things happen so fast I couldn't remmber what I was doing yesterday. Still not sure about him bein banned though.

The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiH, Editor was also subject to a previous investigation which if I understand correctly, proved inconclusive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the ban either. I will not delete declared paid articles except under our usual criteria. This is especially true if an individual turns out to have been an undeclared editor trying to reform. At this point, if someone did that, we might find ourselves in a situation requiring us to delete all their future declared work regardless of merit, and this would be insanely counter-productive. Even automatically deleting their earlier undeclared work once they declared themselves would discourage any incentive to reform.

I have been working on deleting some the articles individually over the last few weeks; I will check tomorrow if any need additional comments, or perhaps ought to be kept. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind per this which I discovered, that BiH has no scruples about plagiarism either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the SPI didn't find any socks for BiH, but the other 8 accounts on the SPI were all related and have been blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EC happens[edit]

I assume this removal of comments was accidental: [8] and I'll let you restore them (because I am lazy, too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking your advice[edit]

Could you stop by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tania Peitzker? I'm thinking that if we remove her self-marketing garbage, there may still be a salvageable stump left. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless. I commented there. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your useful comments[edit]

Hi DGG; Thanks for your useful comments at the Drv recently on the Poetry article. User:Bearian seemed to agree with you, but the review was closed. This leaves the question of somehow udpating/changing the policy pages at WP:CWW and WP:Content forking to indicate that qualified citations to other Wikipedia articles are now mandatory if G-12 disqualifications are not to be risked. I would not want to see other editors led down the same primrose garden path as I was only to have their articles questioned or deleted. It is true that Wikipedia excludes citing use of other Wikipedia articles in the Bibliography section, but it seems like a "shadow-bibliography" is what is now being required. The wording in both WP:CWW and WP:Content forking should be strengthened now to indicate that G-12 disqualifications will be applied if the now mandatory "shadow-bibliography" for WP:CWW and WP:Content forking is not included in articles which are affected (hundreds and hundreds of articles as I count them). MusicAngels (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:MusicAngels: please understand that the problem with the poetry articles was not only copyright violations but also that they were biased, prejudicial, subjective, redundant, and based on long-disputed scholarship. Even if you fixed the copyright you would have a swarm of scholars descending on you. Stick to your own knitting, whatever that knitting is. 01:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)128.90.91.69 (talk)[reply]

MusicAnimal, alll yoiu had to do to prevent the deletion as copyvio was to add attribution, which would have been easy enough.Dennis Brown gave you good detailed advice on how to fix it Personally, I would not have deleted by G12, but I think that everything considered, Nyttend acted reasonably. I would personally have thought it poor judgement right (though not prohibited) for him to have removed it immediately, but you were given time to fix it. WP is full of rules, but most are not actually observed to the full rigor in which they are stated (Even copyright , one of our most rigorous, has-- as you have seen -- some disputed aspects. But they are there, and if a dispute should arise, or someone feel neglected, people sometimes invoke them. The only safe way to work is to write so that someone trying to pick apart an article has nothing to grab hold of. Anything organized like WP will never be altogether consistent, or even always fair.

As general advice, it would be immensely more useful to work on criticism sections for each of the authors. Then summary articles by period could be written using and linking to that material. You need to work on small discrete articles for quite a while, before attempting something like this. Even if you know how to do a systematic survey in the ordinary academic Real World, WP is -- some say different, but I say peculiar.

With respect to the comments from 128.: At this stage in the development of WP, articles on serious humanities subjects that are really properly written and sourced are a minority. The great majority of our articles on these topics are also using out of date subjective material. To do it right, we'd need a few dozen more editors with at least an advanced undergraduate understanding of the topics & of humanities research & writing techniques, and access to the print and online resources of a decent research library. The material added did use current literary criticism also. I have not read it in detail, but I saw no gross signs of being biased or prejudicial. The complaint in the discussion that it covered only WEurope & NAmerica is in my opinion absurd--trying to cover all cultures in a single article on a topic like this is a really major task which was, reasonably enough, not being attempted. All that was needed was to adjust the title or add a line of explanation. There's no way to handle these topics without some redundancy, but if there is too much it can be fixed by editing. If there were errors they could have been corrected, and if better sources were needed, they could have been added. I should add that there is no one correct interpretation of literature, no one way to evaluate the work of an author, nor will anything ever be definitive, nor in most cases is there even at one time a true scholarly consensus. It's not quite like, say, molecular biology. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DGG: The "biased and prejudicial" aspect of the essay was that it arrived fully formed out of the head of an uneducated person, leaving uneducated editors to chip away at it. The act of "chipping away" was deemed disruptive by me and several other because we are IPs. In short, the bias and prejudice of MusicAngels was creating an article selfishly without input or organic growth. I and many others got frustrated because any editing was met with bullying by User:MusicAngels. When you look at his talk page you see some residue there. He had to be slapped down about not bullying IPs over and over again. Every edit I made he reverted and said I had to justify it. How was he justified in creating an entire article out of his field and then have it be the default? Insane. 128.90.39.243 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG; This is the same IP-hopping editor who I reported above as blocked on multiple accounts in his range account at his institution. If you need the other range accounts he is using for IP-hopping I can provide them along with the blocks already made. MusicAngels (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: and what we see here is MusicAngels attacking me because I am "IP hopping" (out of my control) rather than actually seeing the substance of my critique. If Wikipedia policy is that IP editors are not second-class citizens (and if I am so easily identifiable) then perhaps MusicAngels should listen rather than seeking to ban me. There was no consensus on the poetry pages because they arrived fully formed without consensus. 22:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)128.90.95.145 (talk)[reply]

Hi DGG: Thanks for getting back. Only two very technical issues to bring up if you can glance at them. First, the IP-editor here has been identified for IP-hopping and trolling by multiple editors/administrators now and has been blocked multiple times as in this one [9]. You are apparently the ninth editor that he has been trolling/hopping and he appears to be taking advantage of a large institutional range of IP-addresses available at his institution. The second technical issue at hand is that I was quite serious about needing to edit the individual pages for WP:CWW and WP:Content forking to mention the G12 issue and requirements for the "shadow-bibliography" issue (that is, current requirements to exclude Wikipedia article references in the Bibliography section of articles system-wide throughout Wikipedia, but include the Wikipedia article references on the Talk page or dummy edits). Since I am meticulous about checking and verifying references in Bibliographies and have spent a great deal of time cleaning up dead links and restoring bad ones, then this is an important issue. If the deleted articles were mislabeled as G12 (as you suggest in your comments above), then the deleted pages should be at least re-labeled on the admin-only data base as to your stated preference and reason. If they are G12, then WP:CWW and WP:Content forking need some editing and additions to cover the G12 issue which is currently not mentioned on those two pages. If you need some of the other IP-hopping addresses for the IP-account above, then let me know here and I will try to get them listed for you. MusicAngels (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The G12 deletion in such cases can be applied, but usually the problem is corrected after a warning. As I said, I personally would not have applied G12 in this case, but the action was within the range of administrative discretion, and therefore I cannot say it was mislabeled. As I said above "Anything organized like WP will never be altogether consistent, or even always fair." The actually best way of dealing with the WP references is very simple: to remove the duplicated text and link the name. If you did think it necessary to include the text, in addition to the techniques listed in WP:CWW, there is also available a rather complicated technique, used often in history and geography articles, but relevant here also: WP:Summary style. I don't think anyone mentioned that possibility in the discussion--I am going to add a link to it on WP:CWW

There is no need to edit anything to say not to use WP articles as references--it's part of the Verifiability policy page--see WP:CIRCULAR DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my understand as well. This is the template that I had already prepared on my Talk page for insertion in the article, but I took one day off last week and the article was deleted without prior notice of closing. I think User:Fogettaboutit was also in agreement with you on this. This is the template as prepared on my Talk page and I was just going to fill in the names already listed in the Lead section of the poetry article. If you are saying that this will work then I am in full agreement with you and User:Fogettaboutit:

{{Copied multi|list=
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet2 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet3 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet4 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet5 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet6 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
}} Is that what you are reading as being what User:Fogettaboutit had in mind. MusicAngels (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At a different level, I have to say that using these copies was not necessarily a good idea in a general article. Too much of them dealt with the biography, and the reader of a general article would want to see about the literature. They would know enough to go to the article about the author for the bios. It would have been, as I just said, the actually best way of dealing with the WP references to remove the duplicated text and link the name. That people didnt like the article affected the action. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In stating that, you do realize that your suggestion is very close to the WP:TNT option if all of those biographical subsections are deleted. Since this is effectively equal to the solution previously put on the table by Drv participants, then I would like to offer to do the WP:TNT from the inside-out myself for the article. If you could restore the article as a Draft article under a new name "Draft:Poetry in the 21st century", then I will remove all of the biography subsections used in their entirety. This will effectively leave only the lead section and the outline structure for the rest to be then rewritten. This was only a "C"-class article anyway, and I would like to move forward with the option you are offering of straightforwardly removing all the WP:CWW biography material used and then rewriting/redrafting it along with WikiProjects as a Draft article. Also, I would mark the Talk page to inform other editors not to apply any WP:Content forking in the new article. MusicAngels (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December[edit]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Deletion of article: Pulkit Madan[edit]

Hi DGG - the article on Pulkit Madan was deleted today, even though I provided ample criteria for both credibility and significance in the article itself and in the talk section shortly after it was nominated. I'm writing to ask if you would consider reversing the deletion. Thank you for your time sir. - Zig (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

founded 3 insignificant companies, referenced by 2 thoroughly unreliable 1 PR-based interviews *Yahoo India & yourstor.com), and a review of the latest product, describing it as "still a work in progress.". Nothing to indicate importance is the appropriate decision.

Some edits on famous musician in 2008, then nothing until this article, along with the attempt to add the name to three lists of notable people from....

From this, I think it is a fair assumption that you have a WP:Conflict of Interest. If you are the subject, I remind you of our rules on WP:Autobiography. If you were hired by him or financially associated, I remind you of our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure.

I've left you a formal warning. If you blank it, as you blanked the previous notices, it still remains valid. If you think you can find better references than the ones you gave, or if the subject ever becomes notable, you can try again via WP:AFC. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to the level of rudeness and vitriol you have displayed here and on my talk page. I created a contributory article, sourced it appropriately, and tried to politely communicate with you about it, but your behavior has been nothing short of rabid and tyrannic. The article was deleted without any open debate as to its merit, and you left a bully-like 'warning' on my user page to assert your dominance as an admin with the power to 'block' me. This sir, is precisely why I stopped editing for seven years.

According to the rationale you cited in the deletion (Wikipedia:CCS), the subject should be "credible and significant". The primary source cited in the article is a Yahoo special report on innovators.[10] - as the fifth largest website on the internet [11] is Yahoo not a credible source? Is the story of a disabled child entrepreneur who created and sold multiple tech companies as a teenager, with credible news coverage as an 'innovator' not significant? Zig (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, I'm requesting a restoration of the article and a fair open debate on its credibility/significance, along with a retraction of both unwarranted and excessive 'warnings' you issued on my user talk page. An apology for acting like a petulant child would also be nice. Zig (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text of a warning notice is fixed, but I should have used one of the gentler templates. I apologize for that. The part about COI has to be worded pretty much as I worded it, because it isn't clear otherwise. I never delete purely by myself--the article was listed for deletion by another experienced editor, and I agreed. I think I have an error rate of 3%. With two people , that gives 0.09%, which is as good as human judgement is likely to ever be, 1 in 1000 wrongly deleted speedies.

When Yahoo writes a news story they're a RS, when they just let him speak for himself, it isn't a RS. There are millions of sympathetic and interesting people in the world, of whom a very small percentage are notable. An encycopedia contains not what ought to be notable, but what is already notable. I advised you how to re-create it when it becomes notable. But if you can furnish an additional RS reference, I'll move it to Draft space. If not, I will restore and send it to AfD, which is what I usually do for a good faith request. I'm almost always supported, but sometimes I have misjudged, and sometimes I'm right, but overruled nonetheless. Please be aware that you too may be right, but over-ruled by the consensus there, which is frequently inconsistent. Personally, I think it can do significant harm to a career to have an article on the person rejected at AfD. That's why I am suggesting draft space DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this would have been a gentler approach?[12] Why template at all, since they've been around since 2008? WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS applies, even if they aren't regularly editing from *that* particular uid, eh? I understand you 'had' to use the speedy-template (by which I mean User:AKS who actually placed it... and agree about AfD being unlikely to help in this specific situation), but following it with a nice note, seems like the preferred way to accomplish the speedy with the least drama. Apologizing for using a slightly-harsher-template, is not the same as being sorry for using a template rather than not doing so. Do I understand the edit-history correctly, that the speedy-template was *immediately* followed by the final-warning-before-you-are-blocked-for-inappropriate-behavior template?

(cur | prev) 16:38, 16 September 2015‎ Zigthis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,105 bytes) (+486)‎ . . (→‎September 2015: Displayed and labeled both excessive warnings) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:28, 16 September 2015‎ DGG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (619 bytes) (-368)‎ . . (→‎September 2015: removing excessively strict warning by the admin who placed it.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:28, 16 September 2015‎ DGG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (987 bytes) (+598)‎ . . (Caution: Creating inappropriate pages. (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 02:54, 16 September 2015‎ DGG (talk | contribs)‎ . . (389 bytes) (+389)‎ . . (Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages. (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:54, 15 September 2015‎ Zigthis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (empty) (-2,112)‎ . . (←Blanked the page) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:28, 15 September 2015‎ AKS.9955 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,112 bytes) (+2,112)‎ . . (Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Pulkit Madan. (TW)) (undo)

Or was there some kind of other interaction elsewhere, that led to the seemingly-instant escalation to Only Warning? p.s. And where did the 'inappropriate' phrasing come from, is that some kind of new 'generic' twinkle template? Or have I just not seen enough twinkle-templates to know that it's a commonly-used one? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the merits of the speedy, User:Zig, I will add a third voice that it is simply a case of WP:NotJustYet for the article on Pulkit Madan, at least, as far as English-language sources are concerned. The problem is not that they are young, the problem is that there are not enough WP:SOURCES specifically about them, in multi-paragraph depth. Any wikipedia-article needs to have at least three (roughly) in-depth WP:SOURCES specifically about Pulkit Madan, by the 2015-era wiki-traditions (very different from back in 2008 as you may remember... and the wiki-culture is also very much harsher nowadays which is again different than you may remember). In my own search-engine-efforts, I didn't come across anything like that many. (That said, based on the yahooIndia cite, it *might* make sense to add a brief mention of Madan to the wikipedia-article about the town where they live, per WP:NOTEWORTHY, but many town-articles have WP:CSC as their requirement for listing people, so you'll have to check the talkpage.)

Anyways, even though WP:NotJustYet almost certainly applies, per analysis by three other wikipedians, you can always start the article Draft:Pulkit_Madan yourself, you don't need permission from anybody. See the instructions at WP:AFC for how to add your article to the reviewer-queue. But as DGG mentioned, without additional in-depth independent WP:SOURCES beyond the yahooIndia story, the draft-article will have to remain in draftspace, waiting there patiently until more press-coverage exists. As long as you tweak the draft every three months or so, adding new sources as they arrive, it is fine to start it now, and per WP:NORUSH, just slowly accumulate the WP:RS evidence that Pulkit Madan has demonstrated wiki-notability and passes WP:42. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can do nothing but appeal[edit]

   Well, I received your warning, but I won't accept it, especially the word "slander". 
   I don't think is a suitable behavior to closure my new page while I haven't finished editing it(it's clearly). What I have edited is just a part of the page and have concrete source rather than my own opinion, besides, there are a lot of other things such as his achievements being left.I admitted that I've added a little personal emotion, but the things I collected is the truth, so "slander" may not be an appropriate word
   Thanks to your privilege, now I can't continue to editing my page, do you think it's a really man-made obstacle to make the Wikipedia a real encyclopedia?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chacspy (talk • contribs) 14:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That page was clearly mocking in tone. Considering you have not contributed to the encyclopedia in other ways I would say you got off easy. Chillum 14:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should say that the page was a complaint about one of his teachers. WP is not RateMyProfessors.com. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Maybe I have written something too extremely, but I don't think it's enough to introduce a person without any comments. From a wide point of view, it's more likely to be a "negative comment" rather than a "complaint". A man needs both positive comment and negative comment. I had already prepared all the materials by that day, the positive and the negative both including.And I just wanted to separate the edit process into several days. Unfortunately, I happened to write what you regard as "complaints". If I have a chance to edit it again some time, it could be possible for me to put on my all materials and I may cut down some of those "taunts", but not the whole.  Anyway, I'm so grateful to you for your introduction to a suitable website for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chacspy (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Center for Korean Studies[edit]

I noticed you removed a speedy tag from this article. I don't usually knowingly override another admin, but I've still deleted it. This article has has now been nominated for deletion and deleted three times, it's first-person spam and a copyright violation. You can obviously restore if you disagree with both those claims, and I won't wheel if you do, but I have to say that I can't for the life of me see why you simply reverted a valid speedy tag by a GF editor. I've also posted a warning on the article creator's page regarding a likely WP:COI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the tone of the above. I can see, looking at other postings, that you were probably just trying to save the article, but to me the copyright violation and first person spam would need a rewrite in the editor's own words from scratch, rather than just some patching up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing?[edit]

I would like you to run your mouse down this list of contributions - the popups will quickly show you that they are either all important (but not necessarily notable) hotels, or large numbers numbers of Wikilinks to them from other articles. The URLs of the sources all have that squeaky clean look. I haven't done anything yet. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will take a while to check them all, but spot-checking,most of the edits seems to be minor adjustments, of the sort which are appropriate even for COI editors. Looking at articles they contributed themselves, Hilton Frankfurt Airport and Waldorf Astoria Berlin are not particularly promotional. More tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000.

If you have any additional evidence or commentary that could shed light on the matter, that would be appreciated.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me find the specific DIFF LINK that led you to say this: "The Man against the Sky, who admits himself to be a sock, edited exclusively the article for which TriJean lists themselves as a paid editor." ?? — Cirt (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, that he's a sock: [13]. The article is Sally Hogshead--see his user contributions page & edit history for that article. That TriJean is a paid editor for that article: [14] edit summary. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, could you add some evidence about that to the SPI case page? As you're more familiar with that part of the evidence than I, might be best coming from you? — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on the other hand, I have no experience working on spis, except to contribute odd bits I happen to notice. I'm reluctant to post on a formal structured process which I havent't mastered; I do not work on any page requiring knowing a set of nonobvious symbols. I'll add an informal note there, copying what I said here. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

paid editing deletions[edit]

I'm sure you've seen the outcome of this and this. Personally, I relist at least once before closing as no consensus, but this is an admin's prerogative and is not a reflection on the closer. What I'm more concerned with is that while Cunard's efforts to rescue such articles are laudable, such closures possibly deny us of much needed evidence for finding solutions to Orangemoody and other issues concerning blatant paid-for (or indeed any) promotion. Perhaps one could consider employing G13, G11, and G5 more broadly or more vigorously. Thoughts? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard is taking the same approach I would have taken 6 years ago. I then argued that the most important thing is to have acceptable content, and how it got there is secondary. I still think that the ideal way of looking at it, if it were not for the current epidemic of paid editing (and the realization that it was there before, also, but we paid insufficient attention to it.) You & I have been assuming a deterrent effect. Cunard has challenged that assumption, and I can't prove him wrong. As you said, its "possibly deny us", but just possibly. Based on some discussions, perhaps what it's most likely to do is discourage pd eds. from giving money-back guarantees, but they will still be able to show portfolios of whatever of their work has not been deleted, including that done before they were detected.

Frankly, I am no longer willing to challenge on the grounds of having been started as paid editing any article that he will rewrite and take responsibility for; I started thinking in the course of the discussion that I am not sure my renoms of those two articles was justified.

G5 has never covered articles started before someone is blocked, or articles with substantial contributions by others. I can see permitting it retrospectively, but the sort of thing we're discussing would require removing the " substantial edits by others" part. I'm not sure I would support that.

G11 of course should be more consistently applied, but I am not sure what wording would make it stronger, as every article on an organization or its product will have some promotional effect., We could add something about "promotional intent", but this is hard to really prove.

I don't see what you propose to do with G13 to make it stronger. I still have my list of 500 or sos articles that shouldn't have been deleted but were because the contributor gave up after improper reviewing.

What we need to concentrate on I think is the notability standard for organizations. Even here, it's hard to think of how to reword it so it doesnt remove the clearly notable--our emphasis on the GNG prevents any rational work on this area. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs[edit]

Maybe you can also comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Moskowitz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MISoft Studios and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Federation for Family Development. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got here a little too late for some of these, not that I disagreed with the close. The ideal time to ask might be after the first relisting or a day before the first close , BTW, please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Casha DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanee Foods[edit]

Hi can you userfy this plus the talk page for me? This company may be notable based on these sources [15], [16] company was founded in 1950 I'll try and source the article. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it at User talk:Valoem/Vanee Foods but this is exactly the sort of non-consumer facing company that it's usually very hard to source. I'm inclined to consider both of the ones you listed above as reprinted press releases. DGG ( talk ) 13:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion: Gregory I. Piatetsky-Shapiro[edit]

The article maybe wasn't the greatest article (judging from web.archive.org, it was slightly too advertising), but the person is clearly notable (e.g. Google Scholar), being one of the "founding fathers" of data mining and knowledge discovery in databases (KDD).

I don't know him personally (and I'm not affiliated), but I have read some of his articles. His website, KDnuggets, is a key resource for data mining news, too, and part of my daily RSS intake - and should either have its own article, or be discussed within his article. I assume e.g. @Krexer: will agree on the notability of both the person and the web site.

I'd appreciate if you would undelete the article, and instead just remove some of the too advertising statements. I don't think the article is FUBAR, but it is better to improve the existing article than starting from scratch. In all the big data buzz these days, anything that doesn't spin the advertising wheel just gets lost, unfortunately.

Thanks; just my 2 cent after noticing the new red link on data mining. --Chire (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chire, I've restored it, and I agree he's notable, but it needs more complete rewriting than just removing promotional wording. Besides removing info about his childhood, the general tone is too choppy with lots of disconnected sentences and calling him by his first name, ; there are no sources for most of the material (the basic facts about his career can come from a CV, but the statements that he founded or discovered something must come from a third party source) ; it needs a list of his books and most cited papers, and the links to outside sources in the texxt, have to be converted into true references. . And I would have been expected there would be some more important awards. Also, if "he usually abbreviates his name as Gregory Piatetsky." that should be the article title. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added the ACM SigKDD and IEEE ICDM award references for a start, which mention many of his achievements (in particular, that he is a founder of the KDD conferences). But there remains a lot of editing to be done. And I agree that some sections such a work are too detailed. --Chire (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification[edit]

... on Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?, - if I had said the same thing we would probably hear "battleground" again. {{Infobox opera}} was conceived in 2013 to make articles more informative - and more attractive, see Carmen. Who needs a navbox on the side when there's one at the bottom? When the template was introduced, I grabbed the opportunity with delight and applied it to several operas. 16 were reverted in 2013. 15 of those have an infobox now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I know from being labeled "battleground" by the arbitration committee that you can earn that label easily, without any "intemperate nature of comments" (perhaps only because I would lack the vocabulary) and without one edit war, and once labeled it sticks. Example: I was cited to enforcement for this edit (and was told not to it again, as more than two comments was against my restrictions at that time), - look around on that talk, compare what others say. A relative newbie was reverted today and told in the name of "consensus" who reigns that article (which had an infobox for eight years until the new rulers took over). Double standards, just sad to watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in the infobox discussions at arb com because I had expressed a definite view on the matter: that uniform formats make little sense unless used uniformly. But infoboxes can become detrimental if they get too large and obtrusive, as most are at present (Carmen is a clear example that they need not be so). But the editors opposing infoboxes in that subject field are most of them my friends. They remain my fiends, I suppose because I don't try to push this or any other position anywhere, but just come back from time to time. A reputation for moderation also tends to stick. I'd rather keep the reputation than win any particular issue. There are a great many things I want to change here, and my methods is to go back and forth between them. Of course I lose some arguments that way. but over time I accomplish more. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All fine and understandable, but has nothing to do with what I said - or I missed it. I haven't pushed. I have added some opera infoboxes, and they are all as concise as Carmen, because the template was intentionally designed that way. Only a few were reverted and discussed. For a year after the case, I have tried to not even mention the subject, nor suggested any infobox on a talk although I could have done that. Did it win me a reputation for moderation?? Now, two years after the case, I tested the remaining very few cases. You know the result: Joseph. Interesting comments there ;) - Did you know that infobox opera shows 169 inclusions, which includes all stage works by Verdi and Wagner? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Font-Syntax Request[edit]

I wasn't sure if you meant to do this - on my browser at least, nearly this entire paragraph is bolded and then the last sentence entirely in itals. [17]. I tend to try to fix and clean-up discussions that I'm involved in, especially votes but did not want to change the font if that's the way you intended it. Can you verify? Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, fixed. It was an extra ' mark. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I do not understand how Eva Nazemson could be included in the Lawrence Dial AfD? It makes no sense?.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

right. that's why I closed them all as non-consensus. They have to be renominated separately, so each one can be properly argued on its own merits. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Center for Korean Studies[edit]

I noticed you removed a speedy tag from this article. I don't usually knowingly override another admin, but I've still deleted it. This article has has now been nominated for deletion and deleted three times, it's first-person spam and a copyright violation. You can obviously restore if you disagree with both those claims, and I won't wheel if you do, but I have to say that I can't for the life of me see why you simply reverted a valid speedy tag by a GF editor. I've also posted a warning on the article creator's page regarding a likely WP:COI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the tone of the above. I can see, looking at other postings, that you were probably just trying to save the article, but to me the copyright violation and first person spam would need a rewrite in the editor's own words from scratch, rather than just some patching up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing?[edit]

I would like you to run your mouse down this list of contributions - the popups will quickly show you that they are either all important (but not necessarily notable) hotels, or large numbers numbers of Wikilinks to them from other articles. The URLs of the sources all have that squeaky clean look. I haven't done anything yet. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will take a while to check them all, but spot-checking,most of the edits seems to be minor adjustments, of the sort which are appropriate even for COI editors. Looking at articles they contributed themselves, Hilton Frankfurt Airport and Waldorf Astoria Berlin are not particularly promotional. More tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

paid editing deletions[edit]

I'm sure you've seen the outcome of this and this. Personally, I relist at least once before closing as no consensus, but this is an admin's prerogative and is not a reflection on the closer. What I'm more concerned with is that while Cunard's efforts to rescue such articles are laudable, such closures possibly deny us of much needed evidence for finding solutions to Orangemoody and other issues concerning blatant paid-for (or indeed any) promotion. Perhaps one could consider employing G13, G11, and G5 more broadly or more vigorously. Thoughts? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard is taking the same approach I would have taken 6 years ago. I then argued that the most important thing is to have acceptable content, and how it got there is secondary. I still think that the ideal way of looking at it, if it were not for the current epidemic of paid editing (and the realization that it was there before, also, but we paid insufficient attention to it.) You & I have been assuming a deterrent effect. Cunard has challenged that assumption, and I can't prove him wrong. As you said, its "possibly deny us", but just possibly. Based on some discussions, perhaps what it's most likely to do is discourage pd eds. from giving money-back guarantees, but they will still be able to show portfolios of whatever of their work has not been deleted, including that done before they were detected.

Frankly, I am no longer willing to challenge on the grounds of having been started as paid editing any article that he will rewrite and take responsibility for; I started thinking in the course of the discussion that I am not sure my renoms of those two articles was justified.

G5 has never covered articles started before someone is blocked, or articles with substantial contributions by others. I can see permitting it retrospectively, but the sort of thing we're discussing would require removing the " substantial edits by others" part. I'm not sure I would support that.

G11 of course should be more consistently applied, but I am not sure what wording would make it stronger, as every article on an organization or its product will have some promotional effect., We could add something about "promotional intent", but this is hard to really prove.

I don't see what you propose to do with G13 to make it stronger. I still have my list of 500 or sos articles that shouldn't have been deleted but were because the contributor gave up after improper reviewing.

What we need to concentrate on I think is the notability standard for organizations. Even here, it's hard to think of how to reword it so it doesnt remove the clearly notable--our emphasis on the GNG prevents any rational work on this area. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an extra-strict WP:NSOFT-essay, where three coverage-bursts are needed (not just three publishers). If the details of WP:NCORP-guideline are tweaked, so that three coverage-bursts (not just three published sources) are needed, that might ease some of the not-startup-type burden, since most startups only have one product, they get a coverage burst for their first funding round, a coverage-burst when their beta-product actually ships... and then have to wait around for that third coverage-burst (usually a second successful round of series B funding) prior to getting a dedicated wikipedia-article. In the case of Circle, they got their first burst in Oct&Nov'13, their second burst in Mar&May'14, and their third burst in Sep'14, plus their biggest burst yet in Apr&May of 2015. But if the WP:NCORP-guideline standards were shifted to require three bursts of coverage, spaced several months apart, then Circle (company) would have been a redlink (or more likely a WP:NOTEWORTHY mention under Bitcoin#companies methinks) for all of 2013 and most of 2014. Because they had a famous serial-entrepreneur founder, and got plenty of money early on, it would only have taken them a year of operation to get a wikipedia page... but that is still 12 months of WP:FAILN under the three-coverage-burst-test, used by WP:NSOFT-essay already. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs[edit]

Maybe you can also comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Moskowitz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MISoft Studios and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Federation for Family Development. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got here a little too late for some of these, not that I disagreed with the close. The ideal time to ask might be after the first relisting or a day before the first close , BTW, please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Casha DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarification[edit]

... on Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?, - if I had said the same thing we would probably hear "battleground" again. {{Infobox opera}} was conceived in 2013 to make articles more informative - and more attractive, see Carmen. Who needs a navbox on the side when there's one at the bottom? When the template was introduced, I grabbed the opportunity with delight and applied it to several operas. 16 were reverted in 2013. 15 of those have an infobox now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I know from being labeled "battleground" by the arbitration committee that you can earn that label easily, without any "intemperate nature of comments" (perhaps only because I would lack the vocabulary) and without one edit war, and once labeled it sticks. Example: I was cited to enforcement for this edit (and was told not to it again, as more than two comments was against my restrictions at that time), - look around on that talk, compare what others say. A relative newbie was reverted today and told in the name of "consensus" who reigns that article (which had an infobox for eight years until the new rulers took over). Double standards, just sad to watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in the infobox discussions at arb com because I had expressed a definite view on the matter: that uniform formats make little sense unless used uniformly. But infoboxes can become detrimental if they get too large and obtrusive, as most are at present (Carmen is a clear example that they need not be so). But the editors opposing infoboxes in that subject field are most of them my friends. They remain my fiends, I suppose because I don't try to push this or any other position anywhere, but just come back from time to time. A reputation for moderation also tends to stick. I'd rather keep the reputation than win any particular issue. There are a great many things I want to change here, and my methods is to go back and forth between them. Of course I lose some arguments that way. but over time I accomplish more. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All fine and understandable, but has nothing to do with what I said - or I missed it. I haven't pushed. I have added some opera infoboxes, and they are all as concise as Carmen, because the template was intentionally designed that way. Only a few were reverted and discussed. For a year after the case, I have tried to not even mention the subject, nor suggested any infobox on a talk although I could have done that. Did it win me a reputation for moderation?? Now, two years after the case, I tested the remaining very few cases. You know the result: Joseph. Interesting comments there ;) - Did you know that infobox opera shows 169 inclusions, which includes all stage works by Verdi and Wagner? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP page creation[edit]

Were you aware of this? I wasn't. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP page creation, sense #2[edit]

These are the rough cite-counts for Draft:Danko Nikolić (AfD) versus Draft:T._Nerat_Veziroğlu versus Draft:Brian_Boxer_Wachler.

	D.Nikolić	N.Veziroğlu 	B.Boxer-Wachler
	669	2007	389	2002 	219	2007
	329	2009	333	2008 	203	2003
	307	2008	315	2008 	137	2003
	211	2008	305	2005 	109	2008
	159	1998	262	2005 	 96	1995
	115	2007	217	2007 	 87	2004
	 68	2010	188	2009 	 74	2006
	 64	2011	180	2004 	 60	2002
	 62	2009	168	2008 	 56	1998
	 61	2006	142	1996 	 56	2007
	 60	2008	128	2005 	 55	1999
	 55	2007	111	2001 	 53	2005
	 50	1995	 97	2006 	 52	2000
	 43	2011	 95	1965 	 44	2002

Not really related to Kudpung's query, but couldn't resist re-using that section title. :-) Since you have a degree in biology, do you have time to put together neurobiologist-slash-philosopher-of-mind Danko Nikolić, as suggested at AfD for practopoiesis/etc? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is the unfortunate difficulty that I have not yet been able to really figure out what practopoiesis is. I probably could do it anyway but I have learned never to promise to do an article on anything. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'll elide some crucial aspect, but in a nutshell it is a proposal of a semi-concrete mechanism (not concrete at the level of molecular biology... but not as abstract as a purely logical-philosophical argument either... mayhap concrete enough that one could actually program a computer simulation of the proposed mechanism is perhaps about the right level-of-abstraction), which is put forth to explain various kinds of cognitive-science-related-tasks: in particular, it attempts to unify the idea of learning ("slow" practopoiesis-learning), with the idea of recall-of-memory ("fast" practopoiesis-'learning'), among other things. See the k-lines quasi-concrete proposal from the 1960s, which was a tad more abstract (math and computer science proposer versus neurology and psychology proposer), but had similar unified-mechanism-goals. So the concept, is at the intersection of biology-in-the-form-of-neurobiology, philosophy-of-mind, and computational-cognitive-science (or maybe artificial intelligence). Hard to pigeonhole, in other words, because even if we did understand it as deeply as User:Dankonikolic and User:DaveApter, it is an inherently interdisciplinary type of idea.

Most of the work that is cited for Nikolić is not for being the inventor of practopoiesis, but for neural synchrony and such, but User:Dankonikolic says these two things are not-very-related areas, so it might not even make sense to side-merge to a BLP-article. Maybe we can convince User:DaveApter to help write the Draft:Danko Nikolić BLP-article, and further elucidate why practopoiesis ought to be merged into downward causation? The comment by User:Dankonikolic at AfD specifically said that neither practopoiesis nor downward causation were closely related to neural synchrony... but did not say further, whether it would be proper to upmerge the practopoiesis stuff into downward causation. Is the 1974 concept, of "downward causation", identical to the 2013-ish concept of "practopoiesis"? What is the distinction, that caused the new name? (Also, what about ideasthesia?) Why not put both of downward causation && practopoiesis into some purely-about-philosophy article, like Supervenience#Biological_properties? Honest questions, to which I don't know the answers. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the best I can make out is that the theory is saying consciousness is not directly our awareness of things, but rather at a higher level, our being aware that we have awareness about things. I wouldn't really want to comment until I'd actually read the full sources, and seen his examples. Perhaps something like: A monkey knows how to eat a banana; we know that we know how to eat a banana. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided answers to the questions posed by 75.108.94.227. I'll try also to contribute to the questions discussed here. Practopoiesis is sort of related to K-line. It tells us, in a way, what machinery would one need in order to implement a K-line. Practopoiesis is not describing a distinction between "awareness only" and "awareness about awareness". Here is a HOT theory about that problem: Higher-order theories of consciousness. Practopoiesis is more like explaining the engine behind implementing any form of awareness, that of a monkey and that of humans. In a way, practopoiesis deals with more fundamental problems than either of those theories (K-line or HOT). It is about the adaptive principles we need to explain the mental from the physiological/physical in general. So, I would say that 75.108.94.227 got it in the nutshell. One more comment regarding the other topics of my research. It happens so that I do different research projects for different reasons. Some research projects are more on the side of 'paying the bills' while others are more 'for the soul'. I hope that this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankonikolic (talk • contribs) 11:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a long conversation on my usertalk with Danko, about where to merge practopoiesis -- which I can now spell without cut-n-paste so that is an improvement on my part. :-) Also, appreciate your help DGG with the Nerat draft, thanks. Somebody from Istanbul has also been making small tweaks to the Nerat draft, which might be a family-member (before U.Miami professorship Nerat worked in the family construction business there). DGG, can you welcome our new contributor, and figure out if they are the topic of the BLP-article (I asked Harry Braun to email Nerat so this is the most likely scenario), or kinfolk thereof, or just by sheer coincidence a disinterested beginning editor who is helping with AfC? If you are busy with GMOs or whatever I can do that welcome-to-wikipedia-have-you-read-the-ToU-yet-thanks-for-your-help stuff, just ping my usertalk. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for bib databases[edit]

@Randykitty: Hallo David and Randy, I wonder whether either of you has any pointers towards notability criteria for bibliographic databases. Polymer Library, formerly Rapra Abstracts has been PRODded as failing WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY (?). It feels to me like something which ought to have a WP article, but ... any thoughts? You two seem the natural people to ask, and by pinging RK on this page I hope to avoid duplication of any effort! PamD 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? Nope, no idea. For the most important databases (like PubMed or the Arts and Humanities Citation Index) sources can be found without too much trouble. For the smaller ones, it's difficult. We have more database articles like this, none of them sufficiently sourced (just dependent sources for non-controversial info). In the present case, things are even more difficult, because "polymer library" is not an unambigous search term and gives many hits, but nothing really about this database. The links in the article don't help in establishing notability (the last one - STN - even seems to be a false positive as this library is not listed in the list of sources). Perhaps somebody from the Chemistry project would know of some sources? Curious what David will have to say about this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the refs I have at hand. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old Arbcom case[edit]

Hello, I am just wondering if Talk:Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush still needs to be around? Near as I can tell, it's linked to from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others which seems to be closed now. ^Avic _ennasis @ 23:49, 11 Tishrei 5776 / 23:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it has been removed. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:Success Academy Charter Schools.
Message added 00:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Orlando Eye Institute[edit]

Hi DGG, thanks for your message. However, I am still not sure I understand why the article was deleted. If the extended quote by one of the partners was problematic, then it could have been removed. And if there was other content that came across as too promotional, it too could have been removed. But the sources used to create the article really did not satisfy WP:GNG? I figured content about the two partners and the business itself added up to enough content to justify an article. Parbhu's career seemed impressive in particular, not to mention covered by multiple reliable sources. I was really hoping to get more feedback about the article itself before being deleted. I have promoted COI articles to GA status multiple times, and I feel I wrote this article using the same standards. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was quite clear: the 2-physician medical group is simply not notable, and no matter how well you write it, it will still not be notable. I doubt you will find an article on a similarly sized group in WP, but if you do, I will certainly try to delete it. Nor are the principals notable as researchers; I'm quite sure we have no articles relying on WP:PROF for people with just 4 peer-reviewed papers, none of them highly cited. As there is no likelihood of notability, there's no way any advice from me will help you make a sustainable article. The part I cited was one of several--there was similar material in several places throughout the article. I'm sure you can judge more objectively when you don't have a conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, will you please kindly do me a favor? I would like to have a copy of the article (I was unable to save a copy before it was deleted). Is there any chance I could get a copy to save offline and for future reference, or possibly a draft space? I realize this is an inconvenience but I would appreciate the assistance. If could be emailed to me or you are welcome to save the text at User:Another Believer/Sandbox, if that is an option. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will email you a copy. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I really do appreciate that. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do let me know if you need me to send a message to you with my email address. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the delay. I just now sent it. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worldreader[edit]

Hi DGG. I would like to delete any marketing or promotional content you think there might be on the Worldreader page Worldreader. I appreciate your decision to allow us to rewrite the page rather than deleting it, I will do the amendments required. Thanks! JuliaCelis (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 1. Try not duplicating the text and milestones list--it's best to remove the milestone list. Don't include minor milestones. Don't include the names of the authors and publishers and sponsors. (Do keep the list of languages) Replace most of the "Worldreader" with either "the organisation" or "it" . Don't include the founder's story of how he happened to think of it--such content is diagnostic of press releases. Don't use jargon like "solutions"or "centre-stage". Don't list details of platforms. Studieso n the rsults go in a separate section, near theend. 2. I'm also concerned about the article on the founder, David Risher. It contains much of the same content. 3. If you have any WP:Conflict of Interest, (as implied by the "us") remember that financial conflict of interest must be declared , according to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Vista[edit]

Do you think it's worth pursuing the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (5th nomination) (by contacting the closer or possibly del rev)? The closer's argument is that there is no clear interpretation of what constitutes "local" vs. "regional" coverage (play to the semantics/letter of WP:AUD). I thought the arguments clearly stated how the mall's coverage was still of "local interest" (best evidenced by the fact of how its larger import could be unclear at all). – czar 14:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It rarely hurts to ask the closer, but I generally do not recommend taking a non-consensus close to Deletion Review, and , at Deletion Review, I rarely vote to overturn one unless it is truly perverse. .Just wait a few months and nominate again. But in any case the argument would be that publications serving the San Joaquin Valley are local not likely to have readers outside the valley; publications serving the State of California are regional, being of interest to neighboring states also; A major SF or LA paper read nationally is national. The Oakland Tribune is arguably more than local, and it is certainly outside the Valley, but Tribune Business News is not the Tribune. If one is going to get technical about wording, the rule is that at least one non-local source is needed, which implies that one source is not always enough. In practice, the result of mall decisions depends on how hard they are argued. W

More generally, the majority disputed afd decisions hinge on the exact interpretation of the sourcing rule, and in most such cases a decent argument can be made in either direction. That's why I support going by objective criteria. In the case of malls, size. We have failed several times to get consensus on a general rule. If we did, and it were > 1 million sq ft≈100,000 sq metres, this would be deleted with no argument; if it were 500,000 sq ft it would be kept with no argument. In either case the effort debating it could be used for more important purposes. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sqft is the proper metric (assuming WP:42 is not enough of a metric already). Malls in the Boston area will be low-sqft, and that goes triple for malls in Hong Kong. By constrast, malls in Dallas or Minnesota (e.g. the Mall of America for a 'famous' example) will naturally have far more sqft, because real estate is cheaper and the dense-packed-mall-layouts are not necessary.

Something like average-visitors-per-week ... or maybe peak-weekly-visitors-during-the-year to account for the seasonal nature of malls i.e. december 25th ... would be a better metric than sqft, and similarly, annual revenues is a good proxy for visitor-count slash mall-importance. Physically large does not equate well with wiki-notability, but number of people involved (or as a proxy number of dollars changing hands) does a better job methinks. If we do this, I recommend the visitor-count or dollar-count cutoff be low enough that at least one mall per tiny-city-of-population-10k is theoretically able to get a wikipedia article dedicated to the mall -- in the USA there are about 600 such tiny-cities, according to the KGB.[18] Or, actually that brings up another idea, see below. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

proposal: Businesses of Greater Clovis, California[edit]

Or... now that I think of it... we could just use *that* as the threshold: every city with a population of 10k+ people, such as Charlotte Amalie would be permitted by the hypothetical WP:NSHOPPING wiki-notability guideline to have a safe-from-AfD article called Businesses in Charlotte Amalie. Such a 'listicle' would obviously include the 'major' malls (with WP:UNDUE being calculated based on sqft or visitor-count or most pragmatically revenues-per-annum since that latter figure is often available -- or simply in the usual wiki-fashion by the amount of ink spilled in wiki-reliable sources), as well as other major employers like hospitals/schools/banks, notable tourist traps, oft-reviewed restaurants, and such.

Obviously, these business-in-XYZ-summary-articles will be a goldmine for linkspam, so if we go thataway, I would suggest beginning with a Businesses in CityName, CountryName guideline that sets a temporary initial threshold of 100k+ population minimum for the associated metro area; we even have an on-wiki list of such areas, and for the USA the total as of ~2008 was roughly 267 such medium-cities of 100k+ people (total of 295 as of July 2014 data). Borderline-notable mall articles and such, could be merged inot the business-of-XYZ articles, with exceptions for Mall of America and other not-borderline-exceptions. This temporary approach would cover about 90% of the states and territories in the USA... California where the Sierra Vista Mall is located tops the list with ~70 cities of 100k+ population in 2014:

6+: CA TX FL CO AZ NC IL VA WA MI NJ OH TN
4or5: CT GA KS MA MO NY PR AL IN LA NV OK OR PA UT
2or3: IA MN SC WI KY NE NM
one: AK AR DC HI ID MD MS MT ND NH RI SD
zero: AS DE GM ME NI VI VT WV WY

Later, if that 100k+plan worked out, we could expand the threshold to include the additional ~~300 tiny-cities in the USA with 10k+ people through 99k people. Most of the states and territories exxcluded by the 100k+ rule, would be included by the 10k+ rule, including Charlotte Amalie, U.S. Virgin Islands which is the capitol and has 18k population nowadays.

If the scheme *does* work, it could be a good recruiting tool for the type of editor naturally-interested in shopping and tourist attractions (plus editors WP:COI-interested in the retail industry and microeconomics), as I mentioned at the AfD for the mall. Furthermore, this scheme could also be a good way to help decide borderline-notability-questions about startups and such with WP:PRESERVE in mind... rather than a binary question of bangkeep or bangdelete, we would (almost always since I'm proposing a geography-based scheme) have the additional option of merging Circle_(company) into the Businesses in Greater Boston article that was a spinoff from Boston#Economy.

And in fact, wikipedia already has Greater_Boston#Major_companies as a spinoff-list from Boston#Economy. So my proposal is that we expand that to be a spinoff-article that gives some details about the companies mentioned, then do the same Businesses of Greater CityName thing with 300 or 600 more cities, based on a population threshold of 100k+ or 10k+ respectively. Both thresholds would permit bangmerging Sierra Vista Mall into a broader Businesses of Greater Clovis, California article ... which at population 102k people just makes the upper threshold.

Anyways, food for thought here mostly. Ping User:Czar, User:Brianhe, User:Widefox, User:Kudpung, and User:CorporateM, who may have comments about this crazy proposal. ;-) p.s. Not sure if DGG wants to host a big discussion, here on User:DGG talkspace, please let me know if you'd rather see this taken elsewhere DGG. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is the COI hell that would inevitably result from these sorts of lists (many more anons adding their businesses than caring about an esoteric guideline). More concretely, I don't think a NSHOPPING guideline would ever pass consensus—especially since I think (or hope?) we're moving in the other direction (away from content-specific guidelines) post-OrangeMoody. I'd also say that these types of articles are closer to directories in function (what Wikipedia is not). If any such article was necessary, it would need to extend naturally (in summary style) from the city/town article's "Businesses" section. czar 15:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I submit to you that we are already in the COI hell of which you speak. :-) Orangemoody was a symptom: the only way even wiki-notable companies like Countly can get their articles approved, is by spending months and months learning all the wiki-policies, or by hiring some kind of wiki-consultant for cold hard cash. Because the COI-handling-facilities are so borked, we are quickly tilting the wiki-culture towards forcing honest disclosed-COI-editors into retirement, which will leave only the dishonest undisclosed bad apples. Agree about avoiding WP:NOTDIR, and agree about extending the Clovis, California#Economy section in summary-style, but disagree that WP:NOTEWORTHY is that hard even for a reasonably tiny business to surmount. The idea here is that the Businesses in Greater Clovis articles will become a place where

#1) we can put 'quasi-local' organizations like the Sierra Vista Mall, that will be better-watched by the anti-COI-hawks than a dedicated Sierra Vista Mall article possibly could, and
#2) we can also upmerge borderline-wiki-notable startups like Countly into Businesses of Greater Istanbul (or Greater Long since they have relocated to London nowadays), rather than let them molder in AfC as potential victims.
There is even the possibility that #3) companies who clearly pass WP:GNG, such as Circle_(company) and the other bitcoin startups, could be down-merged into a paragraph of the appropriate city.

I'm not arguing this idea is a panacea of bliss, there will still be plenty of COI-encumbered clueless wiki-beginners (not all of them IP-anons dern it! ;-) but I think it is a better way to manage things than the hardline approach to handling COI, which I will unfairly mischaracterize as ban-'em-all-and-let-the-great-jimbo-sort-out-the-wiki-bodies. See my argument at the AfD, that the mall-article (and the businesses-of-xyz even more so) could be #4) a recruiting-tool... this is an expansion on that, which will also double as a way to mitigate the COI-encumbrance-problem, by putting all the COI-eggs into one basket, as it were. Whether it is a better idea, than what we are quickly moving towards, remains to be seen, but I do agree it is different from what we are quickly moving towards. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT business listing COI magnet, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Suggest AfC or some other place is better location for discussing new articles (no idea why I'm pinged). Widefox; talk 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Edward Boyd Barrett may intrigue you[edit]

The contributing editor asserts that the gentleman is important, yet a reclusive character. To me that may be a disqualifier or may be a paradox we can solve. I have a suspicion you enjoy things outside the run of the mill and might enjoy chasing material on this chap down, assuming it is possible to find it. I'm about to ping you from the AFCH entry so you can get the full picture from the editor concerned.

Of course, you may throw up your hands in horror and decline the challenge! Fiddle Faddle 17:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wachler Draft MFD[edit]

Hi, with respect to your MFD nomination of Draft:Brian Boxer Wachler, which it seems you withdrew, I tried to close it but it was un-closed by another user. Apparently I did it wrong. See my own talk page and that of User:Mmyers1976. Would you mind closing the discussion as withdrawn yourself? Everymorning (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you did get it right; frankly, I run into difficulties myself half the time when I try to close something manually. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Trump[edit]

Hi DGG. When you have a few minutes could you take a look at Frederick Trump and share your thoughts on the talk page. I have some concerns about his notability, but I seem to be in the minority. Maybe I am wrong. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish foreign ministers[edit]

When you moved the page, you created a redirect to itself. List of Foreign Ministers of Denmark also redirects to nowhere now. You deleted the original version of List of Danish foreign ministers that had content. Not sure what is going on here. Bgwhite (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fixed; thanks for letting me know. Probably what happened is the db-move template wasn't initially removed, so it got moved twice. It's OK now. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LAVI[edit]

I think you deleted my page LAVI. It was deleted before I even knew it had a speedy deletion nomination tag (from User:Olowe2011). I had no opportunity to contest the deletion and now the page is gone. I was told to contact you to retrieve the deleted material for future reference and improvements. Please advise. — comment added by JewishEducation (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

JewishEducation, there were no references except for its own publications. I will email you the contents, but first you must activate your WP email account from your user preferences page. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the collegial interaction regarding Oktopost. I decided to stand down. I marked up the AfD page with a Delete annotation, given the policy merits of the proposal.This note of appreciation to you is for reaching out when the AfD was initiated, and for weighing the discussion elements very fairly. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yap Kwong Weng[edit]

Dear DGG,

I have been issued a notice of speedy deletion for the article "Yap Kwong Weng", as well as a warning that I will be barred from wikipedia for advertising. I have checked that the article that I have uploaded is factual based on sources online. May I know how I can rectify the situation?

Thank you. Best Regards, Wikiwak991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwak991 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's no better than the article that was deleted in 1993: no notable public positions, references that are mere notices, and multiple quotations like "ap states that his goal is to "raise awareness of the principles of dignity, that will at the very least, give the youths of Cambodia a chance at leading a life of dignity" [74] With this conviction, Yap has actively engaged the youth population and brought the Global Dignity work into Cambodia." sourced only to himself, which is pure advertising. I fixed the attempt to pretend that a TedX talk was a TED talk. I also not that this is the only article you have written, so I wonder about WP:Conflict of Interest. I also wonder if you are the same individual who submitted the previous article, Augustine koh24 and who participated in the discussion at AfD under various other names, none of whom had edited before; it was also their only article, or if you perhaps are working or employed by the subject, in which case see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 12:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA[edit]

Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

You are invited to join us for a full Saturday (drop-in any time!) of social Wikipedia editing at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) for our upcoming "WikiArte" Latin America Edit-a-thon, for Wiki Arte y Cultura Latinoamericana, a communal day of creating, updating, improving, and translating Wikipedia articles about Latin American art and culture.

Saturday October 3 WikiArte Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com).

11:00am - 5:00 pm (drop-in anytime!) at MoMA Cullman Education and Research Building, 4 West 54th Street

All are invited, with no specialized knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia editing experience required. We will provide training sessions and resources for beginner Wikipedians, WiFi, reference materials, and suggested topics, as well as childcare and refreshments.

Please bring your laptop, power cord, and ideas for articles that need to be updated, translated, or created. You are welcome to edit all day or drop by to show your support, and to follow #WikiArte on social media!

Trainings for new and less experienced Wikipedia editors will be offered (in English) at 11:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. Tutorials and resources in Spanish will be available online, and participants are also encouraged to work on the Spanish and Portuguese language editions of Wikipedia.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Next event, October 15 - Women in Architecture editathon @ Guggenheim

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Article Nominated for Deletion - Yap Kwong Weng[edit]

Dear DGG, I am the author of the article, "Yap Kwong Weng". I have contested the two tags on the article. I have explained that this individual is notable because of the contributions he has made to the non-profit sector in South East Asia, as well as to the corporate side, especially in Myanmar. All information in the article are factual and verifiable with references. The article was intended to be biographical. If there are any promotional materials in it, (perhaps wordings), please flag them out so that I can make the necessary changes.

I believe that this individual is notable enough for a public encyclopaedia and would like to request for the speedy deletion tags to be removed.

Your advice on this matter and how to rectify it is very much appreciated.

Thank you very much, Best Regards, Wikiwak991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwak991 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Sorry, I just read your reply to my previous post. I have noted the information. I was also not aware of the article in 1993 and did not contribute to any previous article concerning this individual. My previous contributions, which you have mentioned, was for an album by a band that I thought had a notable musician/arranger (Phillip Lassiter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwak991 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless philosophy[edit]

Please nominate Wireless Philosophy for deletion. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pirhayati, I assume that you are saying that instead of the speedy delete thatI have already done, that it be undeleted and sent to AfD for a community discussion. Considering that wit was nominated for deletion by a editor who has since been banned as part of ring of disruptive editors, I'm undeleting it, and will consider later about whether it should go to AfD. I think it might hold up if you could find a really good reference providing substantial coverage from a third-party independent reliable source, preferably a formal magazine or similar publication. DGG ( talk ) 13:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Doctor" RK Thomas[edit]

I don't know whether to believe what's written at TechnoPilot about one of their founders, a certain Dr. RK Thomas. Is this a legitimate researcher? - Brianhe (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

from his cv, the 3 phds are from unspecified Indian universities; he does have one real published paper. But there is no chance of notability , and it certainly was advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practopoiesis[edit]

Thank you very much for taking the time to figure out what to do with practopoiesis. I have now answered the questions posed on the discussion page. I hope this helps. Best (Danko (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion of MicroAssist Article[edit]

Hi, DGG. I got a notification that the article I created for MicroAssist has been deleted because of promotional content. This is my first time write content on WK and I'm not quite sure what kind of content should be considered promotional and advertising. I don't mean to violate WK polices but could you please let me know where I can find more specific and detailed guide on how to make a page for company? I tried to use neutral words and state facts. I've linked some content back to our website. Is it the major problem we have? I really hope that I can create an article that fulfill all requirements of Wk. Please let me know how I can improve my content

Thanks,

Jessica--Jessicahuma (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]