User talk:DGG/Archive 110 Mar. 2016

Talk archive, made by scallywag05 for DGG. Made as a thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean this year! 😀 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

Appreciation for useful comments[edit]

Dear DGG,

I would like to sincerely thank you for constructive and helpful comments regarding Draft:Pavo Barišić. I was becoming confused by constant decline of draft on basis of lack of independent sources, while I was providing best possible national sources towards academic person (cites from the articles published in leading Croatian journals and websites of central Croatian institutions in the given field). Your understanding of specific situation in humanities is encouraging. In order to follow guidelines you provided I will change focus towards thesis from books and will try to find foreign reviewrs to improve sources even further.

Best regards, Pavao (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:European Graduate School[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European Graduate School. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ishag[edit]

Looks like you deleted it back in January and User:Techglobal1 immediately recreated it. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ishag article is expanded considerably, and will need checking. Probably AfD,not speedy DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion contestation[edit]

Hello! I noticed you deleted a page I created because it "unambiguously violated copyright laws". As I mentioned on the talk page the "violation" that the bot picked up is in fact a copyright infringement itself. I quoted a press release and curatorial statement which an event page for an event listings board reposted in full without attribution. The original sources, as linked in the article are http://www.projectspace-efanyc.org/the-let-down-reflex/ and https://static1.squarespace.com/static/537c9eb6e4b0ca838c2f4f52/t/56ac0b5922482e393fe6a6a2/1454115674505/LDR+Curatorial+Statement_Final.pdf

I'm happy to have a conversation with you about this, and am willing to try to find a solution, including working on a re-write, but I completely disagree with the terms of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13ab37 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to rewrite; I consider it unambiguously a copyright violation that can not be justified by fair use. If someone else wrote it, or someone else holds the copyright, and you're using it as your own contribution, its copyvio. The situation is not helped by one source having copied it from another. Even if the material were public domain, using it without full attribution is plagiarism. I am still not clear if you wrote the original draft -- if you did , the easiest way to fulfill DCM is to place a CC-BY license on the original. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something that would increase discoverability of drafts[edit]

See Template_talk:No_article_text#Protected_edit_request_on_5_March_2016. Your opinion is welcome. 103.6.159.71 (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Iris Eichenberg[edit]

Can you check this new entry in my sandbox before I submit it for review? The artist already has a nl wiki page, but not a US one. Rebekah.frank/sandboxRebekah.frank (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah.frank, main thing it needs if specific references for each museum collection and prize. And some of the prizes seem like they might minor or development prizes, and those should not be included. You'll notice the WP, like most WPs, doesn't require this detail, but we do for living people. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Removal of Ellie M. Cohen Page Without Discussion[edit]

The deletion log states this was done becasue the page was "advertising." This is not the case. It is the beginning step in creating a comprehensive article about this woman scientist and conservationist (a "stump") and, the article is also part of an international effort to correct the systemic gender bias within Wikipedia. The student who wrote this is participating in a university course that is a part of this international effort and is responding to Wikipedia's own "Open Task List": a list of articles that the WP community had identified as either needing to be developed or, needing to be expanded in order to more accurately represent women's history. The page on Ellie M. Cohen is one of the WP requested articles. You can see this open task list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Open_tasks My student will be re-posting his contribution and I respectfully request the page remain. Dalton D. Hird 15:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was helping new editors to expand our coverage of women and other under-represnted groups all day yesterday at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/ArtAndFeminism 2016 . Among the things I explained to the beginners is that in trying to deal with a situation of cultural bias, it is necessary to overcome the unconscious (or for that matter conscious) prejudices of individuals and of society, it is necessary to write good objective articles, about people and subjects that are clearly notable, free from over-personal or promotional content. Writing poor quality articles on these subjects is harmful--it implies that strong articles cannot be written, or that people of true notability cannot be found. Since most new editors do not find it easy to write strong articles initially, the best way to proceed, is to use a sandbox or draft space or userspace subpage to develop the article, and then to have them checked carefully by experienced editors.

Some of the articles that some of those in this course have been working on show these problems (and have been tagged by various editors), and should not be in mainspace. Possibly some of them will never qualify for mainspace. This is a particularly clear example of what, at the very least, is not yet ready. I'll just quote one sentence to demonstrate the problems: "Ellie’s educational endeavors have solidified her interest in analyzing systemic government policies, that ultimately have helped her implement successful conservation programs,in regards to climate changes and how it is affecting different wildlife environments, acquiring data throughout California’s changing landscape" (For one relatively minor but indicative point, it is condescending and undignified in formal writing to refer to anyone other than a entertainer by their first name alone. For another, one way to avoid writing appearing promotional is to avoid adjectives of praise. More basically, for living people, claims of that sort without a third party reliable source reference are a BLP violation.)

I will certainly delete any article of this sort, no matter by whom it is written or under what auspices. I'd suggest that the student not only avoid restoring it to mainspace, but rewrite it before putting in in draft space. G11 applies to draft as well, but we show much greater tolerance there for correctable problems. . Pharos, perhaps you will look at this deleted article, and , since you are very active in WikiEd & I am not, look at this course. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that in looking at some of the other articles in the course, some of those challenged for notability are in my opinion clearly notable, & I've said so, & I've been fixing some of the other problems. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note about professors[edit]

The section with this name on your user page may have a problem, or maybe it's just me. I think you may mean "not likely to be notable". I call it a typo, but am not willing to change it on my own, since it reverses the meaning of what you are saying. Lou Sander (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said "People unfamiliar with the academic world may not realize that even a full professor at a major university is very likely to be notable" and indeed I do think that any full professor at a significant institution is very likely to be notable; I would say further than I think any full professor at a major research university is always notable. And in fact every one of them discussed at WP in the last 5 or 6 years has been found notable, with the exception of those in some special fields about which there is prejudice. Those at institutions less that major research universities, have sometimes been found not notable, but not all that often. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Was my wording unclear, or do you disagree? (perhaps there's some lack of clarity in the word "even" -- by which I mean that at ranks of assistant and associate professor, they in fact are not usually considered notable here.) DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

It was just me. I misread it, thinking that you said/meant "I thus sometimes delete..." Folks like me might benefit if you said "they thus sometimes delete..." IMHO it would also be clearer if the "even" were deleted. (But I'm just one guy out of the many who would read that paragraph.) Lou Sander (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lou, I will rephrase accordingly.In generaly, the author is not the best guide to whether what he write will be unambiguously understood. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fire needle acupuncture[edit]

I was wondering if this is notable, I've found sources such as Japanese Acupuncture: A Clinical Guide, A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine and a clinical study here Clinical observation on cervical headache treated with acupuncture and fire needling technique. I was a bit concerned because editor SummerPHD removed the "Clinical observation on cervical headache treated with acupuncture and fire needling technique" source mid AfD, is this removal correct do these sources establish notability?

Based on my research it does appear this specific technique is popular in Asia particularly North Korea. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the journal article is a single study journal report that does not meet WP:MEDRS; the Japanese acupuncture book is a mere mention of the existence of the technique. The encyclopedia of Chinese medicine is in my opinion a usable secondary source in the use of MEDRS. If it is a well known technique it should be possible to to find something else DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about these sources Chinese Medical Psychiatry: A Textbook & Clinical Manual and Chinese Acupuncture, this is popular technique in East Asia, I haven't began search Chinese sources, do these sources suffice for article expansion? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 11:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking quickly, and realizing that I can not see the context, the first one appears just evidence the technique exists, the second is almost as good as the Enc. Chinese medicine in the previous query, though it seems less academic by Western standards. . None of these are really in depth. The only thing I can suggest is to make an article and see what people think of it. DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Beninati[edit]

Hi, i work for Joseph Beninati and he asked me to look into your recent edits. I see that most of them were to remove company information that you feel does not belong on a biography. Should Antares have its own article since the information cannot be included here? If so, is there a way that I can help create one (as someone with a COI)? I posted this on the Talk page too. I can see that you're probably quite busy, so I appreciate any advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.1.23 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the firm is probably more notable than he is by himself, so if you can find references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, then it might be possible to have an article on it

The only acceptable way to do this is to use Articles for Creation process <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AFC>. There you can have your text evaluated and worked on by other editors to ensure it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a business or web directory. For more information, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTDIR> and our notability requirements at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP>. You should also be aware that the Wikipedia community strongly discourages articles written by individuals close to a subject because of the difficulty in writing objectively about your organization, yourself, your family, or your work, in line with Wikipedia's conflict of interest <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI>, and especially our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure

If you do try to write the page, please note that you must show the notability of the company by substantial published articles about it in reliable source that are not press releases or based on press releases.

Whether or not you decide to write the draft article on the firm, I or any one who thinks the article(s) do not belong in WP can nominate the article for an WP:AfD discussion, and he consensus will decide. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie M. Cohen[edit]

The article Ellie M. Cohen that you recently speedy deleted has been recreated, I should have tagged it for speedy again, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt and prodded it instead. You may want to speedy it again, it is nowhere near ready for main space in my opinion. Theroadislong (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tagged again for G11. It's no better. If another admin agrees with me and deletes it, I will protect it against re-creation. If not, I will take it to Afd DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry for that class, but this would require a "fundamental rewrite"--at which point there's nothing but one unverified sentence left. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientific publications by Vladimir Shlapentokh[edit]

Hi. Please restore List of scientific publications by Vladimir Shlapentokh with all of his scientific papers to User talk:Psychiatrick/List of scientific publications by Vladimir Shlapentokh for my pesonal use only, not for recreating the removed wikiarticle. Psychiatrick (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sure, will do. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you![edit]

Thanks. Psychiatrick (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.

We will also follow up on plans for recent (Art+Feminism!) and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities.

We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

We will also vote on nominations for the global Wikimedia Foundation board.

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

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

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

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! (One likely talk this month will be on the Wikidata project.) Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

request for assistance[edit]

Hi DGG. I don’t mean to overtax your patience and goodwill, but I thought since you have contributed to Wikipedia:College and University article advice, you may have a natural interest in college pages. Here I have suggested a draft to replace a poorly-sourced and heavily tagged article. If you do get around to taking a look, it would be greatly appreciated and if not, I understand your time is limited. Thank you very much. Berenice at John Cabot University — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berenice at John Cabot University (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berenice at John Cabot University, I will try to get to this tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD[edit]

I will be interested in your take on this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fasoracetam I have no idea how you will respond. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on my first draft[edit]

Hello David. I hope this reaches you. This is Kevin and we spoke at last weekend's Art+Feminism Wikipedia-thon at MOMA. You suggested that I notify you once I have a reasonable draft for the new proposed article on the artist Renee Radell. May I kindly request that you take at look at the draft page for Renee Radell? Please let me know what you think, how I might improve the article and whether is has merits for pubication. Thanks much! OtterNYC (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Draft:Renée Radell Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hull 2017 Page[edit]

Hi DGG,

You have deleted the page I created 'Hull UK City of Culture 2017' and I am now unable to recreate it. Please can let me know why you deleted it and how I can reinstate it? I know some referencing still needed to be added but that was what I was planning on working on today!

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScandalousB1ue (talk • contribs) 09:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an advertisement for the festival. and deleted not just by me, but by another administrator also. I have made it a redirect to the city, and you can add a short section there in the Festivals section--perhaps a single paragraph. Do not duplicate the material already at the appropriate section at the article UK City of Culture. And do not add the programme of the festival or puffery such as "The role of Hull 2017 is to galvanise local stakeholders to instil a shared vision for the city in 2018 and beyond" . DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 15 March 2016 (UT

The whole content of the article couldn't be considered to be an advertisement. The Hull UK City of Culture 2017 event is a year-long event that is taking place in 2017 and should be recognised with it's own article on Wikipedia similarly to Leeds and Reading Festivals etc. The entire programme of the festival has not been confirmed as yet but I was planning on updating the page once it was confirmed and I did include part of the programme strands. How do I go about reinstating the page and I will of course remove any promotional text regarding stakeholders etc as you suggest.

List of items associated with Weekly Shōnen Jump[edit]

DGG and EvergreenFir, based upon the move log and the article history, I believe List of items associated with Weekly Shōnen Jump (which was moved to I am Justin Anthony Knapp as vandalism) was tagged with G3 and G5 but is in fact the original article. As such I have moved it back and undeleted it. Please let me know if you disagree or have any concerns. Mkdw ^talk 06:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from figuring out the moves, where I may have misinterpreted, I do not see how it could not fit well in the main article (which of course is not a reason for speedy). Has there been a discussion?. Needless to say ,this is not an area where I have the competence to pursue further. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but quickly looking through the history and talk page there doesn't appear to be any indication of previous deletion attempts or discussion. Like you, I was simply reviewing the CSD tags and I have no background knowledge on this particular list. At a glance, I'm inclined to agree that it's a potential AFD candidate. It's not much of a "list" and seems very eclectic, borderline promotional, and in dire need of referencing. That being said, what I do know of JUMP is that they're a major manga publication. The "Marvel Comics" of Japan. It wouldn't be outside the realm of possibilities for there to be a sub-article about some of their products, but getting that list to there might need a complete rework from scratch. Mkdw ^talk 06:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hi DGG, thank you for replying on my behalf on my talk page during my absence. I'm very grateful for your help! Rollingcontributor (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In need of your wisdom[edit]

I am seeking your insight regarding an issue. The issue is tangentially connected to a discussion I've had with you last year.

I want to engage you in a conversation about the denotation or connotation of the term "Civil Rights Movement". How do you see the meaning of the term and what sources led you to that definition. It doesn't matter the quality of the source. The sources can be anything ... dream, rumor, gossip. I just need to engage someone with a deliberative nature to better understand others point-of-view ... that's it.

I've had repeated discussions with other editors on Wikipedia regarding articles with this term in the title. I have come, very very lately, to a realization that most, if not all, editors define the term in generic terms and I don't. To illustrate this issue more clearly, I put forward excerpts from a recent discussion I had with another user.

The term "Civil Rights Movement" denotes a specific event. For example, the American Revolution is a specific event. To create three articles American Revolution (1775-1788), American Revolution (1789-1865), and American Revolution (1866-1968) would violate WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:COMMONNAME. The Wikipedia process of editorial consensus does NOT make those article titles valid nor the scope of those articles valid. I'm not sure why this has occurred with the term Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia, but it's the same scenario. Editors are ignoring WP:Reliable Sources.

WP:Article titles. That states, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria ... The "Civil Rights Movement" term, like "American Revolution", is not a generic term like "Political history of African Americans in the United States" or "Reconstruction Era and African Americans".

The editor these excerpts were directed at later stated, "I have no sources either way, but I wasn't making any claims. Just going by my own sense of the term. I've come around to your way of thinking that the title "African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)" and the other one are anachronistic, literally imposing today's values and terminology on history. That remains a valid issue..." When I asked other editors in the past for reliable sources, no one provided one. Since no one puts forward sources, I never have anything to understand their point-of-view. The term "Civil Rights Movement", from my experience on Wikipedia, seems to have a de facto exception to the rule of reliable sources.

I would really appreciate this gesture of engagement with me on this issue. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I said before remains true: The fundamental principle of WP is that the Wikipedians themselves make the rules, they decide how to interpret them, they decide how to deal with conflict between rules, and they decide when to make exceptions---this is codified as WP:IAR. There is no point in WP for trying to follow the rules strictly when the consensus does not want to. We have no other way of deciding content issues. The correct title for an article can be decided only by consensus in a discussion. Even if your argument is followed for how to interpret it, I suggest that the better version would be American Civil Rights movement. Personally, I think you havea good argument about common name, but that doesn't mean other people will think so also. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Civil Rights Movement" mean to you? Mitchumch (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends upon context. If in a modern American context I first think of African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68), because I was a student in the time and somewhat politically active, so it has personal significance. I have no idea what it may mean to people in other countries. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the other context(s)? Mitchumch (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In US works written prior to the 1960's, it obviously cannot refer to that, so it refers to the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95). If used in contexts other than the US, see Movements for civil rights.

I should also point out that I do not usually participate in discussion on article names, because I disagree fundamentally about WP's practices. WP uses the minimum distinguishing element in most cases, but I normally would want to add a qualifier,such as a field or date to the person's name, or the name of a country to the name of a cabinet department. At least we now do this in geography. Having realized very early on I was not likely to change the policy, I leave it alone. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't so much about Wikipedia. It's actually about me. I need to develop a better understanding of how others see the term "Civil Rights Movement". A type of casual conversation.

If you rather not participate, then I can understand. Please believe me, you will not hurt my feelings. I can see you receive an extraordinary number of messages. More than any other wikipedian I've encountered. Mitchumch (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for butting in, but I saw your post at the Teahouse, Mitchumch, and wondered what the context was. In response to your question, "What would be the other context(s)?", my immediate thought was the Northern Ireland civil rights movement. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry Thanks for helping. Sorry, I removed my message because I wasn't sure how long a response would be. I've actually decided to go to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Thanks though. Mitchumch (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was considering replying there before you removed it, but only to say that it would be helpful if you could have specified the article title that your question referred to. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I input request[edit]

Hi, There is an AN/I in which my attempts to get admin involvement at [WP:Brian Martin (social scientist)] are being portrayed as disruption. I see that you edited at Brian Martin.[1] -- 18 March 2016

business plans[edit]

Hi David. I enjoyed our chat yesterday at the NYC meeting. Please remember to give me a call when you care to discuss business plans and how I might provide some help in that area. Cheers, Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterNYC (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry I didn't "sign" my last post. Looking forward to hearing from you on my help with business plan reviews. Thanks! OtterNYC (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I input request[edit]

Hi, There is an AN/I in which my attempts to get admin involvement at [WP:Brian Martin (social scientist)] are being portrayed as disruption. I see that you edited at Brian Martin.[2]

Will you please post your evaluation of the article to the ANI/I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=32 AN/I:WP:Brian Martin (social scientist) : other editor is feeling stalked/harassed. And is also attacking me. SmithBlue (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need your input at an AfD[edit]

Hi David. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenex Software Solutions if you have the time. I may have got the wrong end of the stick on this, but I am quite uncomfortable about this article. Unlike most company articles, it was not created by the subject or anyone affiliated to them. Quite the contrary, in fact. Voceditenore (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and I did comment there. I think you have the correct view on this. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A+F Nebraska WikiWarrior Editathon - new page creation issues[edit]

Hi David -- wanted to follow up with you about some of the new page creation issues that occurred during the recent Art+Feminism WikiWarrior Editathon at University of Nebraska-Lincoln. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the info pasted below. Draft are not as much of a concern as the rest of these. Thanks for addressing some of this. -- Erika aka 00:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles created

Alphabetical by first letter

Bernice Slote -- ShreyaChoozi (talk) -- Good job, Orphan, NO references
Edith Lewis -- Ejrau21 (talk) -- GREAT JOB!
Eliza Pickrell Routt -- Haberdasherer (talk) -- too short
Karen S Kavanaugh Miller -- Raethomas (talk) -- Proposed deletion, not patrolled
Khenmo drolma -- Agraff5 (talk) -- notability issues, no links, orphan
LuAnn Wandsnider -- TChau7 (talk) -- Proposed deletion, not patrolled
Lucile F. Aly -- Marisakaytj (talk) -- person is notable. too short, no links, orphan
Maude Radford Warren -- Erin Cheatham (talk) -- notability issues
Nebraska Innocence Project --Dmartinez17 (talk) -- Great start! -- moved from Sandbox
Tricia Raikes -- Ashlynlee13 (talk) -- notability issues, Conflict of Interest (they are sponsor?)
Women's Voices Now -- Kolokotch (talk) -- not even a stub (2 sentences)
Ying Lu -- HannaRogoz (talk) -- notability issues

DRAFT

Draft:Ada College -- Emttycup (talk) -- too short, not patrolled, not enough to review
Draft:Anita Sarma -- Bdwiles (talk) -- needs work to turn into a stub
Draft:Female Health Foundation -- Rachelsamuelson (talk) -- too short, two paragraphs, not patrolled, not enough to review
Draft:Virginia Faulkner -- Cgwillard (talk) -- Submission declined, possible copyvio / copying, needs work

I hope to get to each of these one by one over the coming week. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chemicals[edit]

Well this closed keep saying that it is "chemically notable." You never dealt with what I said - that the only reason people care about that chemical is its potential use as a drug. Never responded to that. And I find that to be just disrespectful. And with this "keep" based on your argument - which seemed to me to almost willfully ignore that key thing (the use of the chemical as a potential drug) - you have just shut down an effort I was about to undertake to clean up a particularly filthy part of Wikipedia - a whole slew of articles about putative "nootropic" compounds that people write shitty Wikipedia articles about as part of their online community - they make these chemicals or buy them from reagent companies and actually take them. I will walk away from that effort now. I just wrote this out of protest; I am not really looking for a response to let you know I am upset, but you can of course reply if you like. Perhaps there was some larger issue at stake for you as well. But still, your not responding to the core of my argument was frustrating for me. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are, as you say, quite a number of such articles, and most of them need editing. I would gladly work with you in improving this content if we could agree on the principles that apply. 1) All chemical compounds that have been not just reported once but discussed further are notable, and the discussions need not necessarily be in scientific articles. 2) MEDRS is irrelevant to the chemical portion of articles on actual or potential therapies. 3)MEDRS refers to claims that something is a therapy, not that something might be a possible therapy. Decent sources are still needed, but secondary reviews in the sense of MEDRS are not required. 4)What I would suggest does need cutting is the detail in many articles on the phase I trials, and possibly some of detail on the phase II trials 5) I see no reason to avoid covering substances in illicit use. This is an important application of NOT CENSORED (I would in fact think just the opposite, that we have an obligation to do so.) The "larger issue at stake" for me is indeed NOT CENSORED, and I consider it as a basic policy that over-rides any guideline, and that we only even consider conflicts when they are to other equally basic policies such as BLP or NOT INDISCRIMINATE (and, to some extent, the less basic parts of WP:NOT, such as NOT TABLOID and NOT NEWS) DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where I feel like you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't argue with you on the chemistry thing at all - not even at the AfD. I agree that primary sources are OK for chemistry - that is a "predictable art" as they say in patent law. The place where you and I really part ways, is the "possible use"/"potential therapies" aspect, which comes down to biology. "Possible" is how garbage happens in Wikipedia. "Possible" is what altmed shills, pharma drug rep shills, people trying to boost the stock of biotech companies, and nootropic knuckleheads, blah blah use to try to wedge garbage into Wikipedia. "Possible" is how almost every search result here happens. Garbage. It is not a matter of NOT CENSORED it is a matter of "accepted knowledge". In the biological sciences, a research paper is absolutely not accepted knowledge. The primary scientific literature in all sciences but especially in biology is where scientists talk to each other as they grope toward understanding. That is why reviews are particularly important for biological content in WP. They give us the best indication of what is "accepted knowledge" at any given time. On top of that, there are literally hundreds of research papers discussing, say, "potential" diagnostics for Alzheimers. Hundreds. How in the world do we decide which of those to discuss in Wikipedia? Should we rely on which university PR office does the best job shilling theirs? Ugh.

Related to that are issues of WEIGHT. By relying on secondary sources to guide us in discussions about weight (which is the letter and spirt of NPOV), we don't talk about every phase I trial of every drug or every potential therapeutic. The literature guides us, not personal preferences or external interests. It is essential for helping us keep the tidal wave of promotional garbage out of WP about health. And there is so, so much.

If you would be willing, I would be happy to talk - to listen actually - to try to hear the deeper logic under what you are saying. Because right now I don't get it at all, and what you are saying has terrible consequences for many, many articles, in my view. And I hope you would be willing to listen to me. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From my userpage, written many years ago:

I have "an extremely strong opinion that the uninhibited free play of ideas is essential to a free society and to humanity in general. (I basically follow J.S. Mill in this.) ... I take pride in being what some call a First Amendment Absolutist, and I mean it in the literal sense. We are responsible for presenting information accurately and honestly, not for what people will do with it. The way to prevent them from interpreting it wrong, is to present it better, not to conceal it. If anyone thinks I have deviated from that position, I'd like to be told, so I can correct myself."

I am consequently very dubious about using MEDRS and related guidelines, such as FRINGE. They are needed because of the continuing assault against honest judgment by superstition and commercialism, but they should be used narrowly to clarify what is the accepted status of what is presented as knowledge. We must not use them to avoid covering a subject in all its aspects. The fundamental assumption behind the creation of a crowd-sourced encyclopedia is that all people are able to judge, if they are given information. They are even able to judge what is reliable information, if the background and the principles of judging are explained properly. It is then their individual responsibility to decide; it is not ours. Those of us who understand science do not have the right to decide which information to give: if we both know science and know how to present it, we will be understood correctly. That is the true meaning of WP:EXPERT. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all i can say to that, is you are in great company with every tinfoil-hat wearing nut job who comes to Wikipedia. I can't believe you of all people play the "censorship" card. My god. Here is where, in my view, your perspective on this is not just a little, but profoundly unwikipedian. We are not a community of experts. We are a community of nobodies. It is not for you or me to judge that primary source over this one. We rely on the published literature to adjudicate as much as we can. That is what happens in reviews; which are essential for adjudicating the biomedical literature. The Wikipedia world you depict is a Mad Max one where anonymous editors duel based on their putative expertise. I don't want to edit in that Wikipedia, and I don't. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also said on my user page, that among my biases was a

"distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science ... I often vote to keep articles on these subjects, because the advocates of orthodoxy here sometimes seem to be even less reasonable than the quacks--and because I think the best way to expose quacks is to let them state their views plainly." DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying you believe in quackery. I am saying that you are standing with the quacks. I have neither the time nor desire to debate with woo-pushers in Wikipedia. Applying high sourcing standards - what OR, NPOV, and VERIFY call us to do when we edit at our best - not only drives high quality content but provides a way to very quickly shunt aside woo-pushers' efforts to make Wikipedia into a Madmax world (both in content and in endless talk page battles) - and likewise helps us keep pharma reps from pumping up content about their drugs. Everybody wins when MEDRS is applied consistently to content about health, including - and especially including - "possible" applications of X. Everybody loses when we lower sourcing quality (including the content that is not generated when having endless debates with people trying push content based on low-quality sources). It is not about censorship at all. That is orthogonal to the heart of the issue. Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so, so many edits like this, every day here. Reverting that is not censorship. It just isn't. ack. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What caused me to write that essay was my experience in working on the article on Intelligent Design. The people defending the ID side of things were defending it very weakly,not being aware of the sophistication of some of the modern proponents. I attempted to present these , in the classic model of WP:Writing for the enemy; arguments which are not at all that easy to refute with the usual high school-level of biology. I was accused of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, hypocritically pretending to be an proponent of science. Being new here, I decided it was hopeless and left the topic, and have not followed the argument since.

There are nonetheless several things I think we agree on: the necessity that you have just mentioned of writing good positive content, the overemphasis of early clinical trials (personally, I would attack first the problem of the notability of drug development firms that have never brought a product to stage III). I have learned in WP that people with quite different perspectives can nonetheless accomplish a good deal by simply working where their interests intersect, without necessarily ever coming to terms with the differences. DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely with you on the ID thing. I made the effort to try to edit neutrally on the acupuncture article, which is a battleground between woo-pushers and woo-fighters and the resulting article is crappy. Acupuncture and some other alt med methods have actually become mainstream to help manage (help manage) otherwise unmanageable conditions, like cancer pain. Some of that is just ugly pandering by the medical establishment to make money, but some of it is evidence based; there is now decent evidence discussed in reviews and textbooks that some alt med methods help where standard medicine doesn't (mostly pain or nausea, where one would expect a placebo effect to play a big role....) but it is what it is. So no argument with that effort.

Anyway, I know that you have adjusted your thoughts about NOTABILITY in light of the promotional pressure that WP is under; in my view raising source quality accomplishes the same goal in articles that already exist, and should also be taken into account in deletion debates. That was why I was especially curious to see how you would respond on the AfD on this drug candidate. Anyway, I hear you desiring to move this to concrete discussion about actual content... I will suggest some things later today. Thanks for putting up with me. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

business plans follow up[edit]

Hello David. You must be terribly busy. Kindly recall our conversation about business plans last week at the NYC Chapter meeting. I am eager to be helpful on this as you see fit. I would also like to follow through with you on the Renee Radell draft if that is still the best approach. Please let me know if you are receiving my messages. All the best, Kevin OtterNYC (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Nice to hear from you David. I was hoping you would reach out. You may have noticed that I had some suggestions from Jytdog about my draft (draft:Renee Radell) and he made a talk page for it. He thinks it has notability so if there is anything I can do to further the process, please advise. I could probably add some online links to some of the sources, since I have seen online archives at a few of the major publications. And, as you may remember, I have the hard copies of the original art reviews. Also, would like to connect on the business plan concepts we discussed a couple of weeks ago. You have my number and happy to provide it again if you send me an e-mail at ktrgeneral@gmail.com. Looking forward to our conversation. I will be working at home all weekend so feel free to call. Cheers, Kevin OtterNYC (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About speedy deletions[edit]

Hi,you have recently nominated almoust ALL of my articles for deletion or speedy deletion, I have to tell you that although you seem to be a very experienced editor and I respect that, that behavior almost feels as malicius harassment to me, I understand that im a new editor, and for that many of my articles may need improvements, but ive been learning a lot since i begin. All of the articles youve nominated for deletion have been reviewed as good articles by other editors, and many of them had also been changed and improved by other users, it seems that you just entered my profile and started posting deletions and speedy deletions tags in all my articles, this sounds like a complete abuse to me. I dont know what would be the process I should follow, but if you keep doing this I feel like I should make a complain about this to Wikipedia. Wizardlis54 (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I see one promotional article, I look to see if there are others. In no case did I delete an article--I nominated them and another admin deleted them--a different admin for each of them..

Let's start with "Navrang Creations". The editor who reviewed it added tags for notability, primary sources, refimprove, self-published and {third-party, and subsequently thanked me for deleting it. it is a straightforward advertisement for a brand, with the one respectable third-party source being a general newspaper article on Indian handicrafts that is not about the particular subject of the article.

"Onyxaa" was a promotional article for an Indian auto detailing company, discussing the merits of its products.

"Allen Career Institute, " a test preparation company, has now been deleted 4 times by 4 different administrators,

"Tipco Engineering" was nominated for deletion by another editor, not me.

Jamie Waller (entrepreneur) is at AfD. If it is kept, it will not be because of his entrepreneurial activities, but because of his appearances on a minor TV series. The community will judge it.

The Modern School ECNCR -- so far from deleting it, I improved it.

That makes 6 other admins who have every one of them agreed with me on these articles. I'm a little puzzled how you chose these topics, and therefore I think it only reasonable to remind you about our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure . DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mena Holding[edit]

dear Sir; you fast deletion of MENA holding page ...which its not include any promotional material just show the history of company last 20 years as i am a new user in the wikipedia please try to give me more information how to avoid deletion again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedeehafez (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the english WP you need to have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The two you gave were press releases from the company. If you have them, then start the article in draft space. Any language will do for the references, but if they are in Arabic,provide a translation of the title of the source and the key part that shows notability. Please see also our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest. which are stronger than in some other WPs. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination of Bryan Caforio[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Caforio. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I commented DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China Oceanwide Holdings deletion[edit]

Did you delete after I contested? If so, was it not significant that 80 South Street was going to be constructed by them? Please undelete so that other contributors can grow the article.--Wikipietime (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In looking thru guidelines;

"deciding whether to delete[edit source]

Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below). Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it."

It seems to me you errored. And I would like some explanation as to why you would have acted as such, enlight of the talk and contesting. You seem to have a habit of squashing singlehandedly, would it not be less cruel to engage others? In the case of Oceanwide, time will prove that I am on the right side of trying to have it included. This battling with "sticklers" is getting tiring. Regards --Wikipietime (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)--Wikipietime (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will always take another look when asked, and revise my judgment if I thinkit reasonable to do so. . But I'm a little tired now, and I will do it tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

restored for further development -- see your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need some advise about finding a source[edit]

Medical articles are not my strength and I usually deal in history, pop culture, computer science and general sciences and whatever I come across. I do not sign in as I do not wish to ever see my watchlist again. It has cost me thousands of hours of life and lost me income. I am having trouble finding a review article (they are preferred but not required) that Jyt is asking for but can find plenty of other non-reactionary doctors and researchers opinions on the subject along with text books that have included the primary research results. Do I use a Request for Comment to draw in other eyes for a deeper source search or some other method? So the article is Talk:Diphenhydramine and you can see the edit history for current discussion. Thankyou for your advise. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add strong content about anything in WP, but especially about health, you need a strong source. You want WP to say that this drug causes dementia, so you need a very strong source. I would have been happy to help you but you chose to argue with me. I am glad you are asking someone for help. That is a good thing. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say cause, and the source doesn't say that either I said "greatly increase the risk of developing". That wording is too strong and should be modified to "associated with a higher risk of dementia". And you started combativeness with weasel words and implications that I have no experience. Jytdog, this seems a bit stalkerish to come here to this page and insert yourself into this discussion. I didn't request your help here. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jytdog did not come here in the expectation I'd endorse his position--there's some rather frank back-and-forth between the two of us a little above.

I'm quite a skeptic regarding the literature. I know it's been estimated most individual medical research papers are wrong. What I don't think MEDRS adequately recognizes that so are most critical reviews and consensus statements--this is very easy to prove: look at the last 30 or 40 yrs of consensus statements on diet, or blood pressure, or lipids, or anti-depresives. There is rarely reason to expect the current consensus will be better than prior ones. And medical textbooks have a unique style of writing: they typically include in their references everything , not just the material the authors think actually correct. I therefore think that MEDRS should be used in a more restricted manner, and that studies based on multiple primary sources do have to be considered. I see no reason why medicine should be different from other fields, where a fair statement might be that no sources are wholly reliable, and , if used appropriately, no sources utterly useless. Mechanical rules for inclusion do not do justice with the very wide spectrum of reliability in almost any subject. What the spirit of MEDRS should be used for , is to a/eliminate the totally idiosyncratic reports, b/distinguish downright quackery c/ lead to proper use of qualifiers in wording. (That said, I think that wording alone cannot clarify adequately; I don't even pay attention to judgements not accompanied by actual numbers, and no numbers purporting to show probability without sample sizes and with an explicit basis for how the sample was taken. What is needed is numerical literacy--which fortunately can be found even among those who do not actually have training in formal mathematics. And wording alone is helpless against the tendency of people to interpret what read according to what they want to believe. what they want

Reactions to pharmaceuticals, and in particular psychoactive pharmaceuticals has a tremendous variation. I'm not a physician, but in my experience good physicians in practice recognize this. Everyone has anecdotal reports, so there's no point adding my own to WP.

As for the actual issue, I think a compromise wording can be found. But that's what I usually say. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ale Resnik[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ale Resnik. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anjan Contractor[edit]

DGG, I saw you voted on quite a few new pages. Can you take a look at Anjan Contractor? I know him from a makerspace lab in Houston.

I also know that his 3D printer for NASA is headed to the Smithsonian... and he's been the subject of an enormous amount of press since 2013... maybe we should cut it way down?3Dnasa (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3Dnasa (talk · contribs), if you have some published evidence that the printer is actually going to be in the Smithsonian, I think it can be rescued; without it, I'm leas certain, especially because none of the cited sources seem to say that anything he has ever produced has actually been eaten by anyone. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis[edit]

I wondered if you could examine Paul Mirecki and Stefan Reif and see if they're notable. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reif certainly, Mirecki probably. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting page protection on Koren Specific Technique[edit]

I wrote this notable quackery so other people have the chance to read this controversial technique and not be deceived with this junk, however it appears unsurprisingly that for the last few months none other then Tedd Koren himself has been vandalizing the page and changing wording from quackery to [3] (health care protocol) he has been doing this repeatedly. Requesting page protection. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think semi-protect will necessarily help, since the individual now has an account. Therefore, I made some minor changes for clarity, and gave the user account a warning on COI. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the coatrack text and unreliable sources. The article is not about Tedd Koren and the unreliable sources should not be restored again. QuackGuru (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paper Abortion[edit]

interesting one. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes indeed. How does one deal with the problem that the entire premise behind the term is wrong? I think the article might be best rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 05:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello DGG,

Thanks so much for your comments on the draft article I wrote on Walter A. Scheiber. I had been in the process of creating a new section on his writing when you commented. I've now added that section, made a few minor edits, and resubmitted the draft. I wasn't sure if you meant to accept the draft as it was before, but wanted to be sure you knew about these new additions.

-Mirialova

Mirialova (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP reform[edit]

Still having enormous difficulties finding someone to extract the required stats. Anoher one has just admitted after keeping us waiting for 3 months, that they don't actually know how to do it. I don't know my way around regex and scripts otherwise I'd do it myself. I've been trying for 15 months to get someone to do this. It can't be all that difficult because Scottywong, now sadly retired, used to shake this kind of stuff out of his late-night beer glass for us. Someone is even suggesting we should obtain Ironholds approval for this - I think that is most inappropriate.

IMO, providing stats to support proposals for improvement or addressing cross-Wiki issues is a service the paid technical staff should be providing to the community who at the end of the day has to do most of their dirty work for them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there are jurisdictional reasons why this is difficult. Tell me exactly what you want, and I know whom to ask. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I'm pretty sure I have explicitly asked you before, but in case I missed it: I have no interest in conversations around these topics as I've got utterly sick of the narrative. This goes double for these, since I'm also sick of how inaccurately data is used. Please do not tag me into them. That, I find inappropriate. Ironholds (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's data that I have access to, I can probably process it into whatever form you need. As above - what exactly do you want? —Cryptic 14:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cryptic, it's all information that is freely available. It just needs to be mined and collated into a Wikitable. I would mail you what we want but you don't have mail enabled. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Enabled. Send away, if it's really something that can't be discussed publicly. —Cryptic 15:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is pretty conclusive now and we can probably go ahead with the RfC, unless you think Cryptic should dig deeper in his quarry while he knows what we're looking for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Not that I have time to do it, but I think you guys should dig a little deeper on this one. First, are you sure that the page triage log is the one you want? That appears to include every action taken using the page curation interface - including adding tags and so forth - whereas your goal sounds like it is focused specifically on the filter created by patrolling. Second, you've shown that there are a lot of low-edit-count users using page curation, but not that their performance is worse. Third, while it's obviously much easier to collect data from the page curation tool than from twinkle, I wonder if your edit-count distribution mostly shows that inexperienced users are more likely to use the tools built into the interface, while experienced users use the more customizable option that requires more setup. Also, I think there's a typo/math-o somewhere, because the edit count numbers/percentages don't add up. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis: Who is 'You Guys'? It took us 15 months to find someone who was prepared to do the data mining. You may be a whizzkid at math but you tend to forget that we run-of-the-mill non-arbcom members are not statisticians. We don't need to be either, in order to know for years that something is desperately wrong with our system(s) of quality control that allows the very young, raw newbies, and paid spammers to operate Wikipedia's most crucial maintenance task of all. You don't have the time; I don't know how to dig for stats, so here we are now, all being criticised, and being sent back to square one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nassim Nicholas Taleb[edit]

Could you have a look at this article and also at Nassim Nicholas Taleb bibliography? Curious to see what you think. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're at it, this was created in a single edit from a purportedly new user... Not sure how to handle things like this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at Taleb before when it was not yet this awful. I just did about 1/5 of the needed cuts. The last resort would be to list it for deletion as irretrievably promotional requiring a new start, but I do not think we are there yet.

As for bibliographies, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Acocella bibliography, and my comment on the talk p. of that editor.

The Hariri article is organized like others in architecture, is much less expansive than many of them, & is not particularly promotional. There seem to be good sources for notability. The main question is what to include as major works. The usual guideline is ones which have been the subject of academic discussion or major exhibitions, so I will remove a few. If this was COI editing, if all of our coi editing were of this quality, we'd never have discouraged it as strongly as we do. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if it had been anywhere near promotional, I'd have G11'ed it. It just looked to me like some of the paid editing that we sometimes see. I'll keep the Taleb one on my watchlist, but these days I don't have much time to spare for WP, so I'll leave the cutting up to your able hands (or perhaps some talk page stalkers here). --Randykitty (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have in many fields been a situation where either a paid (or other coi) editor is specializing in the field, or that people are closely copying each other--it can be very difficult to tell these apart. There are also fields where one or two people without direct coi have written most of the articles, and I have once or twice made false accusations when that's been the case. It is very possible that one or another of these possibilities is happening in architecture; but whoever is doing it is unusually good at it. Elsewhere I've seen concentrations of much poorer work, & I like to focus on one or another of these every once in a while. (For example, there was a group in a medical specialty, where after a year or two whoever it was learned to do only those people who technically did meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO). DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic Biophysics[edit]

Can you userfy that for me plus talk page, I've found some sources that this may be notable. I'll DRV when I think it is ready for main space. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed, but I will not userify, because the article is entirely a description of one person's research, and would almost have qualified for Speedy A11. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty poor form not to mention that you'd already asked the deleting administrator and that he declined. —Cryptic 05:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay nevermind I don't need a copy if it is not workable, sorry I thought there might have been something there, one of issues with not allowing privileges to view deleted content for non-admins. Also I did not mention the other administrator as I did want to make any unnecessary complications. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 06:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic. I apologize--I should have checked with you first, but I'm glad we came to the same conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Northamerica1000, not me. (My only involvement is that I stalk both your talkpages.) —Cryptic 03:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArenaCube page review[edit]

Hi DGG,

First of all thank you for reviewing my draft article: Draft:ArenaCube :)

May i ask for your feedback as i am a little bit confused here.

I read you comment that my article has not been accepted because my submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.

The previous editor had comment that my third party resources were not enough overall but nothing like using advertising language.

Following his comments i added an additional company's interview in one of the biggest gaming and betting magazines in the world that has a Wikipedia page too! Also i added a publication from a very good Greek media. With these two additional insertions i would imagine that my references (7 in total) would be enough in order my draft to be approved.

Is it possible to give me an example of what i should change as i thought my texts were quite neutral.

Thank you a lot.

Best,

Thodoris — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.kalamakis (talk • contribs) 06:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Philosophy section, which is most of the article. the lede paragraph is similarly worded with unsourced phrases of praise. There remains a problem with sourcing also The reference you added was from igamingbusiness, but the piece is not a true interview: it's a PR piece, and the President of the Company signed his own name to it as author. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

Thank you a lot for your feedback. It is much appreciated. I will edit the philosophy section accordingly.

But regarding the interview, it is a true interview. The President of the company does not sign the interview but the magazine has placed a brief profile which is very common in interviews.

Sometimes it is part of the editorial policy of the magazines in order the reader to know the background of the interviewer. Is that acceptable?

Many thanks again.

Thodoris — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.kalamakis (talk • contribs) 07:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:56, 28 March 2016 review of submission by Pezile[edit]

Pezile (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Development Effectiveness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear DGG,

Thank you for reviewing the draft on development effectiveness. Since this is my first time writing for wikipedia I am grateful for any guidance. From what I understand from your comments there are two issues; one, that the article isn't written in a neutral voice; second that it reads too much like a set of definitions.

On the first issue I am a bit confused so it would really help if you could point out a specific sentence that you feel is not neutral, given that the article presents a wide spectrum of views coming from research on the topic that I also referenced. On the second, I actually used another wikipedia entry as a template that followed a very similar structure, namely on Capacity Development. I had thought - perhaps mistakenly - that the article could be constructed in a collaborative fashion.

There is a very vibrant Development Effectiveness community out there, as you can see from the cited research, but one key challenge is that we work based on quite different definitions. So I was actually hoping that a wikipedia entry could spur collaboration for everybody to chime in and improve our collective understanding - but for that to take place I guess the article needs to be released since right now I am the only one who can work on it?

Thank you so much, Patrick

Pezile, In writing about a topic like this, the most essential requirements are first, to avoid jargon, second to be cleat about the distinction between the concept being discussed and related concepts--and particularly clear why it is sufficiently distinct to be a separate article, third, to support the article with references not just from within the particular school of thought, but from authoritative writers about the general subject field. the article as written seems to say it is the same as aid effectiveness, but broader, dealign with all forms of development. If so, there may be no need for a separate article--unless the techniques and disciplines are separate. (And since we do not currently have an article on aid effectiveness, possibly the need is for a general article covering both. You tell me above it works on "quite different definitions," but this is not clear from the article.

What you need is a greater amount of explanatory text, and less of a listing of definitions from within the field. How does the general field of development studies regard it? Does it have its own journals? The question is not whether it regards itself as a separate field, but whether it is generally regarded as a separate field.

Fron what you say above, you have a conflict of interest about the subject. This does not prevent you from writing about it, but you need to be very careful about WP:COI, and to include viewpoints other than your own. (that's what I meant by NPOV). DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:54:04, 29 March 2016 review of submission by Betamyr[edit]

Betamyr (talk · contribs)
- Draft:WME (digital marketing agency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to find out about how big a company has to be in order to be notable. Thank you!

There is no formal requirement for size. What I said was, "It cannot really be expected that a company this size is likely to be notable" The company employs under 500 people., and has a revenue of $46 million. Considering that it is an advertising firm, I probably should indeed modigy the statement, it is possible, but not very likely.

The actual question of whether it is notable or not will depend upon the references. See the at WOP:CORPDEPTH. The references have to be 1) substantial 2) about the company 3) not press releases and 4) not mere notices). You have a large number of references, but they are either entirely about the proprietor, or from source like BusinessInsider & SMartCompany that publish press releases,

I point out I an the 4th person to decline accepting this article. The other comments emphasised the `pl nature of the material. I should have said that also, but the review program is present to give only one reason. Promotional articles (and web sites) tell the reader what the ocmpany would like them to know; in contrast, encyclopedia articles say what the general public might reasonable want to know, having heard of the company. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. NFor example, nobody but employees or prospective employees care about the company culture.

Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:56:21, 29 March 2016 review of submission by Annatasja[edit]

Annatasja (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Cross Cultures Project Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know more specifically what is wrong with the text. I have used other NGO-pages as inspiration, and I don't see how they can be approved, when this cannot. I have found one place, where the language may be commercial, but the rest of the text is based on facts and data with sources from different places. Obviously, a small NGO will never contain as much information as International Red Cross or Save the Children. So I would appreciate, if you could specifically point out what is wrong with the text?!

There are actually two problems of equal importance.

promotionalism is one of them--the article talks about the importance of the problems that need to be solved, and why the groups approach is a good one. What it needs to do is to talk about what the group is actually doing

lack of notability is the other. At Wikipedia , notability has to be proven by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Every isingle one of your sources is either from your own web site, or the UEFA wevbsite, or Facebook. What you need is article published in nationally known magazines and newspapers. . DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you please explain to me, how this site got approval and how there is not even a Wikipedia comment about credibility?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Committee_for_Aid_to_Afghan_Refugees

It has TWO external sources, much of the text has NO references at all and the ones that do refers to the website of the organisation. Small NGOs often face the challenge of publicity; does this mean that despite a number of projects in several countries. What is your criteria for notability? I will try to make the required changes and sources, but I just don't think it's fair that there are one set of rules for certain organisations and not for others! Annatasja (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Wilder Notability and reference sources[edit]

Hsaunders24 (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Draft:Ian Wilder[reply]

I have now resubmitted this draft 3 times and every time i do so, i receive the comment that the references are not credible. I have ensured to put in references found in British national newspapers such as the Independent and the BBC - other government sources have been included as well. What are other credible sources?

I am looking at other live Wikipedia pages and wonder what they have done differently: Harvey Goldsmith

Hsaunders24 (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is both promotionalism and borderline notability

The only ones from national newspapers are

the Evening Standard, where is is quoted as one of the bystanders observing a gang attack.

A BBC announcement that he will be one of the participants on a news program, talking about it

the independent, ditto. :::The Independent, about his publicity stunt to promote a grad prix event which was never held

the Standard, promoting about his oxford street proposal.

What these show, is that he;s good at getting PR about himself. The clear purpose of the article is to do likewise. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia . There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. Do you want this to be another bad example? DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Ian Wilder has been dead for almost 7 years. I'm not sure what this article is supposed to be promoting. He was bit of a local hero in my part of London [4], [5] (Camden New Journal). Might not make him notable enough, but still... Voceditenore (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are these editors being neutral?[edit]

During the middle of this AfD, QuackGuru and Alexbrn made these edits here and this edit. They have removed sources such as this mid AfD specifically after the discussion favored inclusion and changed the tone to be more promotional. Is this is valid removal of sources? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I and others disagree, which is the purpose of AfD. Valoem ^talk ^contrib

You agree with the removal when you cannot show any of the sources are reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the guideline that says those sources are not valid? Is there a specific guideline stating major medical corporations are unreliable for medical topics? I seriously doubt it. Also it appears you removed any skepticism of the technique and is now more promotional, perhaps to generate a rush of fringe noticeboard members to speedy delete? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please show how those sources are reliable.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are secondary neutral sources. Please show how they are unreliable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page you wrote "There is no issue with using primary sources, they can not be used for notability, but can be used for information."[7] You admitted there are primary sources in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aetna is obviously not a primary source. Plus removing them mid AfD does not allow other neutral editors to judge the article fairly. If other agree those sources are not valid the article will be deleted. In fact that is the purpose of the AfD, we have a disagreement about the sources now let others decided, oh wait they did, the consensus started to strongly favor inclusion so you removed those sources. I feel like I am applying logic appropriately. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a business website. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right! I forgot all "business websites" (whenever that means I think CNN is also technically a business website) are unreliable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CNN in not MEDRS compliant. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion both of you were wrong. All WP guidelines are intended to be applied flexibly, with the particular flexibility appropriate to the situation to be decided in each case by consensus. Even policies are worded as they should "normally" be observed, unless there is consensus not to. And the fundamental policy of WP:IAR, says specifically we can even totally disregard all rules if doing so will improve the encyclopedia. Even the FA articles in medicine, when appropriate include such references as CBS and newspapers. In particular, removing major references during an AfD is usually a very poor idea, unless it is done for the purpose of making an clearly unacceptable article clearly acceptable. Edit warring about such peripheral matters is an even worse idea--they can still be talked about during the afd because they are in the article history.

As for my actual opinion of the article, and my view that the efforts for exclusion of articles about nonstandard medicine of even the most absurd variety is an example of bias and prejudice and failure of NPOV. see the AfD. The best way of showing the true nature of this particular topic is to let its adherents speak for themselves. I didn't believe how ridiculous it was from the heavily censored WP article, under I read their own descriptions. Censorship is counterproductive, here and everywhere. QG, you wish people to read only what will do them good. This is paternalism and directly opposed to the spirit of NPOV and free inquiry. If you wish to express your biases ( a bias which in this case I happen to share quite firmly), it should not be on WP. To make clear my position on the subject, I and most other science editors left Citizendium in large part because those in charge they were insisting that Chiropractic was a valid branch of medicine. Fortunately, at WP nobody is in charge, and I will help defeat all attempts to use it even for the most wholesome promotionalism and propaganda. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Amway[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Amway. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of microfluidics research groups[edit]

Somehow this strikes me as going completely against NOTADIRECTORY. The number of similar lists that could be devised is enormous (list of neuroscience groups; botany groups; systematic botany groups; mycology groups; cognitive neuroscience groups, etc etc etc). Almost none of these labs is notable, even though they are at notable institutions. The references are basically a collection of external links to the home pages of these research groups. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of microfluidics research groups (3rd nomination). I consider the earlier 2012 decision totally weird, and that this is an issue worth arguing. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another very similar one: List of systems biology research groups... --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]