User talk:DGG/Archive 111 Apr. 2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                       ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

            DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES compromise[edit]

Hi,

I've seen in a few places you've mentioned WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (or the idea behind its practical use) as "the compromise". It sounds like there's some backstory there that I don't have.

To me, just seeing that description, it seems like the opposite of a compromise. In other words, who is it a compromise between? If it's between those who want to apply WP:N to school articles and those who do not -- or between those who believe sources always exist for schools and those who do not -- then it seems to fall squarely on one side. A huge number of AfD debates could go either way depending on participation and tenacity, but we don't say "this side is always right from now on" without there actually being consensus for a guideline to that effect doesn't sit right. Am I missing something? Maybe what I'm missing is just all the drama that led to the rule in the first place -- that if I went through that I, too, would breathe a sigh of relief even if a sort of IAR guideline-not-guideline was required? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Rhododendrites, it is a compromise between those who wanted all schools to be notable, primary schools included, and those who wanted to limit even secondary schools by whether or not there were practically findable references to meet the GNG guideline. Back in the days before the compromise when I was new here (2006-2008) , I and a few others routinely defended every elementary school article, on the basis that it was significant to the community, and that if one had access to the local sources, one could always find references significantly discussing the planning and construction and zoning of the school. Additionally, quite a few of even the primary schools had two or more notable alumni and these would usually lead to coverage also. the arguments over whether the references were substantial were dependent mainly on how hard people argued, and there were at that time some really radical broad inclusionists way beyond anything contemplated nowadays, who were willing to argue very hard indeed. There were, correspondingly, some very radical deletionists (or more exactly, narrow-inclusion proponents), who at times were defining substantial to mean that the subject had to be the main point of the reference, and unless two entire substantial magazine articles or books were written about a subject, we shouldn't cover it. The effort needed for arguing about a single school could mean hours of work for half a dozen people. AfD decisions those days were really erratic.
At that time, I felt WP should be very comprehensive with respect to local notability, partly because of the readers, partly because it was a good place for beginning writers. I changed my mind about this over the last few years, because too many local institution, both non-=profit and business, were being used for promotion, and I came to realize as I became more involved with paid editing problems, that this factor was the most important. (Schools are very easy to remove promotion from, without the need for actual rewriting, and the amount of vandalism there used to be ton those articles is much less with the edit filter.)
You see, Notability is deliberately not a policy, because we can really set the dividing line anywhere we please. We make the encyclopedia , we make the rules, we can include in it what ever there is consensus for. This is a new kind of encyclopedia , and we're not limited by what used to be the limits of paper,or the convention that an encyclopedia was mainly an academic reference. It doesn't much matter if we have articles on relatively trivial subjects, as long as we can keep out the really dangerous content, which is promotionalism and POV writing.
I do feel that using the GNG for a dividing line is absurd--it was a really stupid guideline in the first place, because it made inclusion depend upon the practical availability of certain particular kinds of references to the sort of writers we have. We are limited by Verifiability, and that gives an unavoidable bias in some areas, but we shouldn't add to it. I have always thought any rational meaning of notability is a function of the subject, not of the references.
I also feel that consistency matters: people should be able to predict what they are likely to find in the encyclopedia, both what type of subject, and what type of coverage. This is very difficult to achieve with our method of decision making, but fortunately the range of variation is smaller than it used to be. One of the reasons it matters is to give a impression that the encyclopedia is prepared by serious people who know what they're doing. There are other practical compromises of this sort. One is PROF, which as applied means we cover all full professors (Though rank is not part of the formal guideline, the decisions in practice follow the full vs. associate line very closely.) I think this is the wrong cut-off, and it should include all tenured faculty at universities, including the Associate professors. I could give along argument why, and in my early years here I gave a great many. I usually lost, however, and I decided it was more practical to make sure we did cover the notable full professors at least. And in practice we reached agreement on that, and consequently AfDs on researchers are quite predictable--and quite rare. In other fields too: I would include many more academic journals than we do, but again, I thought better to accept a median position where we predictably kept the ones in major indexes.
It is better to have a clean compromise rule than to argue. This goes at least for everything that is not a fundamental moral principle. The only policy here I consider truly of that nature is NOT CENSORED. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In short, Rhododendrites, notability for schools was in fact an idea originally seeded by our founder. Over the years, and even longer than the 7 years I've been a coordinator of the WP:WPSCH, this principle has been loosely applied as documented at OUTCOMES. There have been a geat many debates on the subject and even near-vandalism scale attempts to batch delete school articles through AfD. Neverteless, while not one single one of the debates reached a consensus one way or another, at AfD High Schools continue to be retained and non notable Primary Schools are redirected to their school district article or locality. In the meantime, as this is now supported by literally thousands of such closures, we can assume a tacit consensus for the current practice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to go into detail. I indeed misread what the "compromise" is/was between. This is a more well reasoned way of framing the position than I've seen lately, when arguments have been dominated by demands that tradition take precedence over notability guidelines without going much further than that. I see granting ~"inherent notability" to a subject as a huge deal -- and if there is consensus for it to be so, then it's crucial it exist in the form of a policy or guideline rather than as informal understanding or tradition (I'm sure we could get into a number of discussions about the merits and problems with rules vs. traditions in the context of Wikipedia...).

While some who were part of the conversations leading to the compromise (and others) take it for granted, many others (myself included) take for granted that notability applies to every article unless modified, qualified, or exempted through some other policy or guideline -- because that's how it works for almost everything else (I can't think of an exemption as broad as secondary schools that is likewise uncodified somewhere). I agree that it's important for notability to remain a guideline. There's too much variability, too much subjectivity, too many other guidelines that modify it, and too great a need for judgment in exceptional cases. But providing a broad, [practically] beyond discussion exemption is just the sort of thing guidelines like the subject-specific criteria are there for.

Having read a great number of arguments on the subject now, I think I'm sufficiently persuaded to fall on the "support" side of adding it to a guideline should it be proposed, but until that happens I still see it as highly problematic to point to a descriptive essay to shut down discussion, asking for it to be treated as a prescriptive guideline. That's why I appreciate your rationale here, because it's not simply presented as WP:OUTCOMES -- a collection of noted trends that perpetuate themselves by their being wielded as an absolute rule.

In other words, your points are well taken. The problem is WP:OUTCOMES. I can't imagine those who support the notability of schools find it an ideal representation of consensus on the subject, either. I feel like I get the compromise, but if good will among the community was part of the reason for it, I think that the further we get from the date of that agreement, the more conflict and confusion the present arrangement will generate. Based on the above, I'd suggest you be one of those involved in drafting whatever RfC would address the problem? (Adding high schools to the gazetteer function of Wikipedia or WP:ORG seems the most straightforward rather than a whole new guideline).

Anyway, this is a longer followup message than I intended and I feel like I'm repeating myself a bit so I'll end there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG[edit]

Thanks for your recent input in an article regarding the Naima Reisser Company. I did go through the article again and fixed everything you mentioned in your last review. I'm happy to welcome you again to inspect the article and see if I've established the notability that's required of articles of this nature. Thank you again sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpedia1 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I re-reviewed it. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The declining of these G13s[edit]

Hi DGG. I wanted to know why you removed the deletion nomination of Draft:De Paul School Brahmapur, Draft:GMERS Medical College and Draft:Government Engineering College Bharatpur. Please expand on what you believe what "notability" is. If there are no reliable sources available for the schools, obviously they aren't notable. Writing "it's the top school in ____" doesn't prove notability, either. I could go ahead and edit something like Steve Jobs and write "He was a good at fishing" but if it doesn't have a reference proving it's real, it doesn't matter whether he was the best at fishing or the absolute worst. I agree with one the essay on schools, where it says:

I'd like to know what you follow for the notability guidelines on schools. I don't mean to be rude, and you have been here longer than me, but don't remove a CSD G13 from an article which obviously doesn't have any future, unless you, yourself, edit it and fix it. Draft:De Paul School Brahmapur was last edited on 14 April 2013‎, just under 3 years ago. Draft:GMERS Medical College was last edited on 8 August 2015‎ or 29 May 2013‎, depending on what you define an edit being; either way it's been at least 11 months since the last edit. Draft:Government Engineering College Bharatpur was last edited on 2 January 2015‎, a year and a few months ago.

Thanks for reading all this, I hope I didn't come across harsh at all, I'd just like to know your reasoning. I'll be waiting for a response, I'm watching your talk page so no need to ping me (not stopping you, though). Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are several questions here. For the reason why I think all high schools, by most certainly all colleges should be treated as notable ( see my response to Rhododendrites, a little above. Basically, it's to avoid arguing each of them. Similarly I would treat essentially all elementary schools as non-notable-- again, to avoid arguing each one of them.
Second, under G13, the draft is deleted only if nobody is working on it, but we normally define that as nobody being willing to work on it. I am willing to work on school articles, so I removed the G13. And in fact I added some material to all three of them today, though not much, and removed the puffery, as I always do from any article I work on. I do have a rather long list of drafts to work on, but I eventually get to them, or someone else does. But even at MfD, we normally do not drafts if they have any plausible possibility of making an article, unless they are harmful in some such way as being significantly promotional, or if multiple attempts to make an article have failed.
Since in the last five years very few high school of college articles has every been deleted on grounds of notability, I would even be justified in moving them to article space, since the criterion is merely that the article is likely to pass AfD. But I did not do that, because I like most of us at AfC do not move such weak drafts to article space. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology[edit]

This may interest you. Wikicology, who you discussed here in September 2014, has continued his trail of destruction across the project, except this time he was meddling around with articles about poison gas, in a highly dangerous way (see e.g. this cleanup). A site ban is being discussed again. Peter Damian (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

since it might get to arb com,,, DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Evac[edit]

Hi! I saw you deleted Air Evac without a consensus or a vote for deletion for that matter. Why? I would like to ask you to re-instate the page and then take it to a VFD as it's most usually done. Thanks and God bless you! Antonio Airman Martin (dime?) 05:23, 4 March, 2016 (UTC)

Status and Advice[edit]

AntonioMartin, It was listed for 7 days according at the WP:Prod process, to see if there are any objections. As it was not objected to, the admin who reviews after the 7 days is expected to delete if they agree--and I do, it has no references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements sources showing notability and is in my opinion also considerably promotional. This can however be somewhat unfair to articles hich has been made a number of years ago,and which are not being actively followed. Therfore, you are entitled to have it restored on request.

But it would only be fair that I inform you that our requirement for this sort of article have gotten considerably stricter since 2004, and the article will almost certainly be deleted at our process, now called WP:AFD. It might be far wiser to write an article on the parent company PHI Air Medical, or even better on the ultimate parent Petroleum Helicopters Inc,-- if that is still the status of the company, But in any case It will absolutely need references such as I indicateded above to remain in WP, and it will need to show some significance beyond its local are.

The best way to ogo about it is to use a new process here, WP:AFD, and I have accordingly moved he deleted article to Draft:Air Evac. you have about 5 months to work on thearticle--to decide whether you want to change it to a more general article or expand it where it is. When ready, click the submit button at the top. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bass[edit]

Greetings - Given your extensive experience as a Wikipedia editor, I wanted to connect with you to see if you would be able to review and consider suggested BLP edits to improve the Kyle Bass page. I will not be making edits to this (or any) page, but rather participating in the community discussions about proposed edits.

My name is Steele and I work at Hayman Capital Management, L.P., which was founded by J. Kyle Bass in 2005. My goal is to serve as a resource in support of Wikipedia’s three core content policies. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting Dispute on Article: Herald Square[edit]

Hey DGG, Sanjev here. I just thought it needed to be brought to your attention that there is a dispute on the formatting of Article Herald Square which can be found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Herald_Square under sections "Photos". Prehaps you would like to take a look to resolve this as the users involved seem to be in disagreement. --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Christian Philipp Müller[edit]

I realize I'm coming to this a bit late, but I just saw the note on my recent draft of Christian Philipp Müller that it was going to be deleted from 27 Mar (it was deleted 1 Apr). I am new to writing Wikis, and went through several drafts. The original text was written by me for Müller's website, but when it was posted on his site it was flagged for copyright infringement. I understand the reason for stopping it because of that. So, I re-wrote the whole thing, including other projects that weren't there before and deleting others, and adding in more citations (as had also been requested). I also changed all the language over the course of several editing sessions (and many hours). However, the post was still deleted for copyright. Can you tell me why? Were my re-writes not sufficient? Now that the post is gone I can't go back and look at it, which is sad. It will take me a long time to rewrite something else. Thanks, Cjbucher (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Cjbucher[reply]

Cjbucher, I have gone through the entire history of the draft, reading each version, and I think you have been given inadequate advice from various people, myself included. First of the first reason for declining was wrong, "Definitely notable, but it has some issues with structure, and a slight tone issue. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:" . Some issues with structure, and slight tone issues are not reason to decline a draft. They are matters that can be corrected once the material is in article space. The criterion to accept a draft is that it probably will be accepted as an article if it should be challenged for any of the many possible deletion reasons at Speedy Deletion or AfD. "Probably is not defined"; various of us use between 60% and 90%. I use 80.
The second reason was equally wrong. The subject clearly does meet the notability standard, for the work has been the subject of major academic discussion and thus meets WP:ARTIST.
The third reason was right, but the advice you were given was incomplete. Since it is clear that the original text is on the website of the individual it might be possible to obtain permission to post it here according to the detailed provisions at WP:DCM, which require donating the article under the provisions of CC:3 BY SA , which irrevocably permits anyone in the world to make use of the material in original or modified form for any purpose whatsoever, even commercial. This can be done in two ways, first send a formal permission letter as specified at WP:DCM, and second, which may be much easier in this case, of pacing the appropriate license statement on the published material. The version marked as cleared was free of copyright violation, and should have been immediately accepted, but you added back too much material from the original. It was therefore properly rejected, but once again, you should have been informed about the options at WP:DCM.
As for what you should do, I've already suggested the best course: put a license on the original material. If this is not acceptable, then you need to remove the copyvio. Iw ill restore and accept the version that was cleaned, if you will agree not to make further additions to it . The material you added seems to have been prepared by taking the original text, and removing part of it. The net result is that almost every sentence contains some material from the original.
But there is another problem: you have,as I would have assumed, some connection with the artists. Please see our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest, which are considerably stricter than those you may be familiar with at the German Wikipedia. See also our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. If you were hired to write this article, you must explicitly declare it as specified in our WP:COI rules. If you subsequently wan to add to the article, the acceptable way to do this is to declare the COI, and then add the material you want to the the user page, followed by a line saying {{Request edit}} -- include the two pairs of curly braces. Or ask me.
I want to get this article to work right~~articles in his genre are difficult for us to handle, & I want there to be a good example. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG Thanks for your response! Ok, let me get this straight--as I said, I'm new to editing--if I get the copyright permission either by tagging CPM's website or by having him send an email to Wiki "donating" the text, then I can get the copyright violation lifted. My relationship with CPM is as his website admin. Though I do write texts for the site, I did not write this bio text. It was originally written by someone else and my involvement was to post it on his website. However, I do work for him. Do I still need to declare a COI? I don't have a problem with doing that.
Also I was a bit confused about your offer. You said that you would restore a "cleaned" version. Which submission was that? The first one was the same text from CPM's website (though it wasn't on his site at the time so it wasn't a violation yet, so I updated the tone & structure), the second was slightly modified version of the same text with more citations (which was rejected for copyright bc the text had been posted on the CPM website), and the third version that was deleted had undergone several re-writes including removals and new additions. All involve some modification on the text posted on CPM's website, though the third should be the most substantially different.Cjbucher (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the time I do not suggest giving permission for the material, for 95% of the time the material is unsuitable. But most of what you say can be used, provided you can give references for it. The version I am willing to restore is the very minimal version of 21:16, March 9, 2016, which contained about half the content from your edit of that date. I've undeleted it as Draft:Christian Philipp Müller DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see...but it doesn't contain the intro, most of the material from Solo Exhibitions, and the Permanent installations section is empty. Perhaps this was my mistake in saving? It would be easy for me to get permission to use the text from the CPM website. If I have that sent to Wikipedia from an official email, can we use the final version that was deleted, which included the material from these sections? Particularly the area related to solo exhibitions that explains CPM's work. Thanks!Cjbucher (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 13: WikiWednesday Salon NYC and Mini-Video Opportunity[edit]

Wednesday April 13, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC and Mini-Video Opportunity

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.

Special this month, a Mini-Video opportunity for individuals to share their Wikipedia experiences (during pre-meeting, 6-7pm, and in side-office during regular meetup). A videographer will be present to record 1-3 minute Mini-Videos of folks informally speaking, sharing anything about their Wikipedia-related projects, whether an edit-a-thon they joined, an article they edited, or a class project they were a part of, etc.

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 place our chapter's votes for the global Wikimedia Foundation board.

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

6:00pm - 7:00pm Mini-Video and social hour
7:00pm - 9:00pm Regular meeting: Introduction for new participants, Noshing, Chapter projects

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) 14:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some dim sum for you![edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 08:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/European_Graduate_School_(3rd_nomination)[edit]

Your input has been requested and would be appreciated. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

interesting !vote. thanks, that should decide it. Jytdog (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

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

A G11 block I don't understand[edit]

David–

I've just seen a block I don't understand. It's not of me, Neonorange, but of a user, SusanaKavanaugh whose page I happened to see a few hours before it was blocked for G11 (only one edit, an that to set up a user page). The content was minimal, but did include a link to a home page, again, with minimal content. The blocking admin was Gogo Dodo. Unless admins are privy to some blacklist, I can't see any reason for this indefinite block. I only saw this by accident while following the trail of a reckless speedy delete tags by TJH2018. After checking this one, I removed the speedy tag and left an explanation on the tag gets talk page an on SK's talk page. If I've made a mistake, please let me know. And, if you feel it's worthwhile please help me understand the situation. I do n't particularly wish to contact Dodo Gogo directly, as I would have no idea of how to respond if there is pushback. — Neonorange (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neonorange: I blocked the account and deleted the user page because it was a spambot account. The account was flagged by an edit filter that I wrote to detect these spambots, Special:AbuseFilter/499. While I prefer not to go into details on how these accounts are detected, this is a long running problem (I wrote the filter back in 2012). In this particular case, there were many accounts trying to spam these Haverwood apartment links. You can look at my block log to see the vast number of accounts I blocked in the past day labeled as "spambot". I do not leave block notices on the accounts because these accounts are not real editors and there is no point in leaving block notices. Since DGG has edit filter access, he can look at the filter rule and also check a few of the accounts that I blocked for the Haverwood spam:
There were many more along with different spam targets. While sometimes the spambot succeeds in making an edit, sometimes it does not and it is only detected through the edit filter. The spammer does not just spam Haverwood apartments. It was just the spam du jour for the day. Likely his new SEO hire. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite apart from the edit filter, looking at the deleted article & checking the links, any admin can easily verify what's going on. For non admins, that they're labelled in the deletion log as spambot should be considered as verification.
But , Neonorange, there's rarely any reason not to ask an admin directly. It's true there are a few admins who unfortunately ignore inquiries (and for such people I'd make very sure to ask to build up a record of non-response), & a very few who have sometimes responded rudely (who should still be asked, for similar reasons). I hope we have none who who retaliate upon being asked, but if there are such instances I'd appreciate being informed privately. This is one of the purposes of arbcom. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG, thank you for replying so quickly. It was not my feeling that I might risk retaliation, but rather that after an initial reply that was not so complete as the one Gogo Dodo posted here, I would not know enough to ask a follow-up. I was wrong not to ask Godo Gogo first. — Neonorange (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gogo Dodo, thank you for your rapid response. I believe you have fully answered my question. I do have a follow-up. When I, a genreral editor, without access to filter output, sees a user page such as SusanaKavanaugh is there any reason to assume the page was a valid but somewhat misguided first edit by a new user? I considered an earlier speedy tag placed there to have been biting a newcomer. To an unaided eye, the page just seems what one might expect from a new editor raised on Facebook and the like. In a general case would recommend a warning and suggestion, and trust your filter to sort out the chaff? — Neonorange (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can usually tell by looking at the external link, and by whether the other text is there solely as an excuse to make the link. I saw SusanaKavanaugh at the same time I did Parkerkv, and didn't untag the former precisely because I thought it might be a spambot and felt I was too tired to make a call one way or the other. Most cases are less ambiguous. —Cryptic 18:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neonorange: You should always assume good faith on new editors. When in doubt, don't tag it and refer it to one of the noticeboards if you are unsure. Warning the user is fine if you feel that the edit leans towards a warning, but not quite blatant enough spam. The filter is not infallible; it detects quite a few false positives and misses certain kinds of spam. A legitimate new editor can easily trip the filter, which is why it is set to log only. If you were to watch user page/user talk pages being created new editors, you will begin to notice the pattern of the spammers. Their patterns are fairly obvious and you would have seen that this account was a prime example of a spambot. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gogo Dodo and Cryptic Thanks for the additional details; DGG, thanks for your help and space. I will try to work with the advice you all have given. — Neonorange (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years ago ...
keep articles
... you were recipient
no. 453 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ready to vote on ARCA? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... not that it would change things, just for completeness, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:49:58, 12 April 2016 review of submission by WanderingJosh[edit]


Thanks for reviewing the BiondVax draft. Would you mind expanding a bit on your reasons for rejecting? I reviewed WP:MEDRS. From what I understand, the sources provided comply (including reputable news sources and peer reviewed journals) - can you please explain what I'm missing? As for "excessive detail" - I tried to include relevant unbiased information. When it comes to detail, what is "excessive"? Thank you WanderingJosh (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only refs 16, 17,and possibly 18 are medical journals . 16 does describe the product, but its a primary research article, not a review. 17 apparently does not, but discusses earlier prodoucts; 18 does discuss the development of the product, but I can not tell from the information given what kind of source it is.
Almost all the refs are Press releases or from the company itself or listings of clinical trials.
The criterion for accepting aDraft is that it is likely to be kept at AfD. If you remove the press releases and the like, I will accept it, because our standards in the area of drugs under development are uncertain. The community will decide at the AfD discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFD notice[edit]

An article you have previously deleted has been nominated at AFD. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZippCast. Toddst1 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied as A7 and G11, and protected. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Review - Isa Noyola[edit]

Hi David, Hope you are well.
I was wondering if you had time if you could review the Draft I was working to improve for a recent editathon? It was submitted for review and declined, and then I followed the original editor to try and address citation issues, etc.
I think it's a very important page in terms of notability for an underrepresented group on Wikipedia, the person has had adequate press coverage, and this issue of Trans / TransLatina is very newly covered (or even not even covered) in broader culture and news sources today. So I wanted to aggressively follow up and get this on the main space as effectively as possible. So am asking for your expert eyes. Here's the page: Draft:Isa Noyola Thanks in advance, and all the best to you.... -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in process. But remember that we cannot really include that which ought to be covered in news sources, but isn't. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{U|BrillLyle}}, I accepted it, after removing extensive promotional content worded in PR language. Please take a look at the changes I made. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Invitation[edit]

As one of the most respected editors I know I hope you can take some time to join an important discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention about possibly finding a way to salvage Single-purpose editors and transforming them into positive WP collaborators in the general mainspace. I'm sure you run in to many of them as you wander around WP. I'm also sure that every now and then one of the SPA editors rises above the crowd and seems worthy of more of your time and effort. Your personal insight and experience would be appreciated. WP:WER has a declared mission to retain editors but we have become a relative ghost town (and I may be one of the few ghosts left in town) and User:Robert's idea may be just the boost the Project needs to revitalize. It's an opportunity for the Project to actually do something beyond handing out awards. I think Dennis Brown would like it. Please comment. Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

commented there;will keep an eye on the discussion DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting COI article[edit]

Perhaps you'll find this one interesting... A long-established Wikipedian had created a draft, on himself. It is at Draft:Derek Ramsey. 103.6.159.87 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

declined, with suggestions for improvement. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there are a number of discussions started by the subject on the talk page. 06:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.87 (talk)
Now at WP:ANI#Article about User Ram-Man written by Ram-Man.. —Cryptic 06:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

When you get a chance, could you just copy-edit your accept comment in the recent RFAr? Thks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. thanks for letting me know! DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User talk:DGG/Archive 119 Dec. 2016[edit]

User talk:DGG/Archive 119 Dec. 2016, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:DGG/Archive 119 Dec. 2016 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:DGG/Archive 119 Dec. 2016 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


RDX[edit]

Hi, You recently deleted my page RDX Inc. Let me tell you about this. I was trying to move rdx sports to rdx inc and didn't know about move page function. So I created a separate page RDX Inc which was empty page and try to to move rdx sports to rdx inc that page, which I think you figure out speedy deletion of page. That's why confusion raised. Please make my rdx Inc page live. added by user:Davidbooom, Jan 26, 2016.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RDX Sports. The article was unsuitable regardless of page title. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Joseph-Goteiner[edit]

I've removed your CSD tag on this article. It's not that I think you're wrong about the suitability for Wikipedia, but that I believe that the article presents enough context and the provided sources are good enough to meet the threshold of a claim of notability - the threshold that CSD A7 requires.--v/r - TP 04:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Joseph-Goteiner. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of Jaime Mora Solís[edit]

I cannot belive how fast you are in deleting this article Jaime Mora Solís. I was just working on it. It is relevant to the Panama Papers and I can show this person is linked to Juergen Mossack via the law firm he works for and the conerex board. James Michael DuPont (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdupont: I've just looked at the article and it definitely qualifies as CSD #A7. You've got lots of experience here, you should know that. Would you like me to userfy it for you so you can work on it?--v/r - TP 04:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdupont: I assumed you'd want it at least to be userfied, so I've put it at User:Mdupont/Jaime Mora Solís for you.--v/r - TP 04:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need to cover the basic facts about these law firms connected to Mossck. You can see Arias, Aleman & Mora is connected via José_Miguel_Alemán to Jürgen Mossack via Consejo_Nacional_de_Relaciones_Exteriores. I am covering all the companies that are involved in the panama papers and there is a huge amount of work to do. James Michael DuPont (talk)
James Michael DuPontIt is my understanding that quite a few firms are involved in the Panama Papers; if there is sufficient specific information on specific firms, then write the firm articles to emphasize this aspect of notability. If the firms are not notable otherwise, there is no reason to simply write a routine company article without anything specific. (Please also be aware of NOT NEWS--if the firsms are known only for this specific event, this may not justify an article on them unless the information will remain of historic importance.) Please in any case be aware of our content policies--we do not list routine executive positions except the ceo or anyone else noteworthy--WP is NOT a Directory. The basic rule of content is to provide reliably sourced information about what the general reader will what general reader will want to know.
I notice also your article on individuals. NOT NEWS applies to them with specific force in the policy BLP1E. Only if their role will be of permanent interest would they be appropriate for articles. Take a look at the relevant talk pages to see how these policies are applied, becuase there will probably need to be a discussion about this in general, and this is not the place for it.
The place to do all this is in Draft space, and then when the articles are complete, to request a move to mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I need to make a wikibook on the financial industry of panama. James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mdupon, not necessarily, but you do need to make clear in the initial version of each article you submit why the person or firm is encyclopedically important, This should be at least indicated in the lede paragraph (ideally, the first sentence). DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Graduate School[edit]

Hi DGG. I noticed you have been active in the AfD lately. I've proposed a new section to replace the former "accreditation" section on the Talk page, here. I think the proposal threads the needle of the various perspectives, including yours. Would you please have a look and comment there? thx. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

Hello DGG, Please restore back my article Draft:Natalia Toreeva, since I can't start from empty page. It has the websites I need to use. I will follow your advice. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC) And another question I have: should I show how to read the ref. articles in English, or ref. are enough written in Russian? I have included in both lang. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Would you restore the Draft, so I can use the references from there. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David, I'm repeating my question: Would you restore my Draft:Natalia Toreeva, since this is the first time I'm writing the article, and if the Draft is deleted, so my references will be lost. I will clean up the article, but I need to have those references I used. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG, I'm still waiting for your answer. I understand you are busy, but still.. I need your help. Thank you.Toreeva (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) If the draft got deleted as promotional, then the same text shouldn't be put back. Also, Wikipedia has no deadline, even if you do. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joseph2302, Thanks for the reply. I will re-write the text, but I don't want to spend un-needed time to search again for the references. It's waste of time. Can you send this Draft to my email if it is easier?Toreeva (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Toreeva, you must first activate your Wikipedia email. Go to the Preferences tab on your user page , and fill in the Email section in the "User Options" DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, David.Toreeva (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simmilar Pages[edit]

I am new here, obviously, but don't really understand how the page you deleted differs from the Bosch or Cosworth company pages that I used as a guide... The page is intended to replace one that was already there that was not appropriate as a description of the company (ie did not describe the company accurately) Thanks Cossie55 (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cossie55 Let's talk about your page for MoTec. First, the material is promotional: it uses terms of praise, and stresses the advantages of their products. WP does not allow this. Second, the draft provided no reason why one might think the company important. To show a subject sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it is necessary to have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements; the draft had nothing besides the firm's own website. Second, you copied most of it from their web site. This is a copyright violation and WP does not permit it--see WP:COPYRIGHT . For material previously published, there are two choices: rewrite it completely in your own words using neutral language , or obtain copyright permission according to WP:DCM, which requires the copyright owner to give a license according to WP:CC BY-SA , which gives an irrevocable license for everyone in the world to use or modify the material and republish it for any purpose, even commercial. Most companies do not want to give such permission, but even if you can obtain it, the material is not suitable, because it was written promotionally, to say what the company would like to say, as is the normal purpose of a company web site. But an encyclopedia gives the information that people who have heard of the subject might want to know, which is quite different.
As for the other articles you mention, you probably mean Robert Bosch GmbH; it needs some rewording for promotional language, but it has many references; Cosworth has an immense amount of well-sourced encyclopedic detail. For such comparisons in general, see WP:EINSTEIN. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply, it is good to understand how it is intended to work here. The main reason this began was a poor entry allowed here in the first place that was not appropriate. Updating this was merely to remove the inaccuracies of what was already allowed here. As an employee of the company, it is my responsibility to correct such items when published. Happy to leave this topic blank, but I will look at other pages like Cosworth again and see how I can make a more valuable contribution. Cossie55 (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cossie55: Yes, there are hundreds of thousands poor entries here from earlier years when standards were lower. We improve them or remove them as we come across them, but most good writers here reasonably enough prefer to write new articles than fix old ones. Since you have a conflict of itnerest with at least one of the companies, the way to work here is: for an existing article if you want to make changes, suggest them on the article talk page, explaining your conflict of interest and afterthe suggested change, place a line reading {{Request edit}} -- include the two double curley braces; it will take a week or two, but an esxperienced editor will come around to check and if everything is ok, make the changes. If you want to statt a new article, do it in WP:DRAFT space. On your user page and the draft talk page, once more explain the conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The Chronicles of New Jack Era[edit]

I'm not sure what the issues with my article are. The first time I did it was put into deletion and then to draft. The draft needs to be deleted.

What I did was to redo the article. I had to create it over again. The Chronicles of New Jack Era was available.

The first one I did, I did not have the format info box for a book.

Please advise?

Tks. 

Adjoajo (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that is not the problem. The problem is that you will new additional references about the book from other publications . The presence or absence of the infobox is irrelevant, no matter what you were told. Infoboxes are usual, but they are entirely optional. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Snehilsharma[edit]

DGG, alerting you to this COIN section as you initiated the AfD of Bulbul app, which is now back in mainspace. There are a couple of related SPIs to this COIN discussion too. —SpacemanSpiff 04:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page length[edit]

At the time of writing, your talk page is 507,982 bytes long - one of the longest on Wikipedia. This makes it unusable for some of our colleagues, and uneditable for others. Please archive the majority of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

will be done, though it will never be short. I intend to retain selected individual items of continuing interest. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page is currently 488,057 bytes; still far too long. Anything of interest may be retained in sub-pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who often edits on a small-screen phone, I find the TOC is RSI-inducing, it takes such a lot of scrolling! It's such a pity, because this user talk page is often a found of wisdom: it's just very tedious trying to access it. PamD 15:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 19 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian)[edit]

Hello. This article is being discussed at ANI and I thought you might want to add your 2 cents. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal M. Ayyub[edit]

Hello DDG,

I am writing you regarding the biography at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_M._Ayyub (current version)

Please compare to the previous version that has been in use with some updates over about 8 years at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilal_M._Ayyub&oldid=678678762 (30 August 2015 version)

The recent changes that were made by JYTDOG resulted in removing most of the content. It took significant effort and time to restore the first paragraph in the current version per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BAyyub.

I noticed that you added a comment under talk (either for this biography or at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BAyyub) that was later removed. Also I noticed that you have familiarity with biography styles of professors based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG#note_about_professors

I tried to restore and update well sourced information, but they were immediately undone by JYTDOG without offering any guidance. I examined the biographies of other professors and found consistency with norms although it could benefit of enhancement, but I need guidance.

Would you help to restore the content and give specifics to enhance content or provide sources? I am happy to help.

Thank you. Rob Robmishra (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored some of it and will probably restore a little more, but not everything. In general, it is not helpful to include minor honors or publications when there are major ones--that's the difference between an encyclopedia article and an academic CV, which does include everything possible. Many of our existing academic bios have undue coverage of minor material. I, just like Jytdog, usually remove some of it when I come across it, though I think here he removed a little too much. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI[edit]

I did a procedural keep on this topic because it was nominated for deletion by the same editor, jps less then one month ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (2nd nomination) (closed less then two weeks ago). It a procedural keep justified? Valoem talk contrib 02:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the result at AfD1 is no-consensus, an AfD2 can be held at any time in the hope of getting consensus--even immediately is possible, but almost never a good idea, because we are much more likely to obtain consensus after a month or two or three. Personally, I usually wait about 6 months, unless the non-consensus was merely due to insufficient participation. If the close at AfD1 is keep, then I think one month is usually too short a time for AfD2; most people wait 6 months or so; I usually wait s year, unless the result were really peculiar. As a practical matter, I find that the longer the interval, the more likely to get a different result, and this has to be balanced against the need to remove unencyclopedic material.
In this case, there were two successive no-consensus discussions, the first one I listed in Feb 2015 that was correctly closed by postdif in March 2015 as no-consensus after 2 relistings, the second that jps listed on 1 April 2016 that was closed by Sandstein on April 9 as no-consensus, suggesting that alternatives to deletion be pursued. That's normally a rather short time for a non-consensus close, but reasonable because of the very sensible suggestion for alternatives. The most recent close for a variant title, was listed by jps on April 20. That would normally in my opinion be rather on the short side, but the nominator gave a plausible reason, that the individual items had all been found non-notable in separate AfDs during the interval. Considering also the short length of the AfD2, I would have let the discussion continue, though I cannot say that what you did was really wrong.
Anyway, your close was reverted, and given that the revert had an explanation and at least some plausibility, I would suggest simply continuing the discussion. It might help to have some wider attention, because there seem to be some basic disagreements. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dato Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Hj Abd Razak listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dato Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Hj Abd Razak. Since you had some involvement with the Dato Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Hj Abd Razak redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing red links from Ogilvy & Mather[edit]

Hi DGG! I'm reaching out because you recently deleted the article for Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific. The editor that created that article also updated the main Ogilvy & Mather article's infobox with several OCHA mentions and links, which are now red. Since the O&M article doesn't mention any other regional divisions, I think these links and mentions can just be removed. I have a financial COI with the article, so I don't want to make any changes myself. Would you be able to clean up the infobox by removing the "Rohit Sahgal" bullet from Key people and "Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific" from Subsidiaries? Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware that it would need doing. I'll check it. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Heatherer (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a few things[edit]

First, I wonder if you could perhaps SNOW close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter L. Schindler? Also, I also wondered if you could evaluate Yuwei Shi which I'm currently questioning so I of course welcome your insight. Sincerely, SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

commented, but I;d rather not snow close this early. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:John Carter (film)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Carter (film). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 23:52:00, 26 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Rpurdy2132[edit]



Rpurdy2132 (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RPurdy2132, unless you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements there is no real hope of an article. It is rare that a companies this size in a non-consumer field would have such sources available, but if you do, it might be worth another try. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to help[edit]

Please see my comment at Talk:Yorkville High School. It's a sensitive and difficult matter, and some folks might say it's not relevant to the article (I'd disagree). Your judgement, I'm sure, would be helpful. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep an eye on it. (he is after all a notable alumnus as member of congress) DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with this. I'd say that it is important that young folks know that some people do this type of thing and get caught, so we shouldn't just turn our eyes away and wish it wasn't in the article. Of course demonizing the school, or even just other teachers who were there 30 years ago, isn't helpful to anybody. But how to navigate between the extremes .... i trust your judgement. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Review[edit]

Hi DGG. I would like to discuss with you why the Aloha (company) page I created was deleted. It was deleted in less than 24 hours, and I did not have a chance to contest the speedy deletion. I disagree with the deletion because this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion CSD:G11 as mentioned in the nomination for SD tag. The article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and the citations meet WP:RS guidelines as well. I also noticed that this page was a requested addition here, although I did name the page incorrectly. If there is a specific element of the page you feel could be improved, could you please identify that element? I can remove it and work on improving that part instead of having this page deleted. This is my first time creating a page so any additional information you can provide would be very helpful. Thank you. JointsinMotion (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JointsinMotion, I have looked at it again. An article primarily devoted to a list of product ingredients and a description of the greenness of the packaging material is promotional. No one would care about this except prospective customers. To inform prospective customers is the purpose of advertisements; encyclopedias are written for the general public. It seems possible that you may have some conflict of interest; just in case you do, please read WP:COI, and if you try to write the article again, declare your involvement. Whether you do or don't, if you try again ,it would be wise to use Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DGG for your feedback, this was very helpful to me. I don’t have a COI, but I have been an aloha customer before and I don’t believe that violates COI rules. I see what you’re saying about some of the article being too promotional, but I do think this article has some notability. I will look into the draft space and make my edits more informative. I appreciate you reviewing my article a second time, thanks again. JointsinMotion (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Spiller[edit]

I've now done a fair bit of work on Draft:Mary Spiller. I would appreciate another pair of eyes on it – I'm sure it still contains stupidities that I've been missing. Maproom (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sackner Bernstein[edit]

Thanks for your comment on Draft:Jonathan_Sackner_Bernstein. You describe the bio as "overly promotional".

I confess confusion. Promotional of what? Of the person? How does one answer the objection, "not notable" without listing the things that make someone notable? The bio is written, as best as I can tell, in a neutral, wikipedia tone. So it's not the tone (or if it is, no other reviewer has pointed out specific tone issues).

Is it the mention of the new project at the end? It's only a few words, and happy to delete.

My frustration is that hard-working volunteers (thank you) are reviewing the work of another volunteer (me) and not agreeing on their objections. A lack of consistency makes it almost impossible to improve the work, and feels like, "go away."

Thanks for your help if you can offer it. Sethgodin (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sethgodin, just like everybody can contribute, almost anybody can review. The original review missed the key factor entirely, and I've let the reviewer know. Bernstein is unquestionably notable: the criterion for the notability of academics is WP:PROF, with the key factor in almost all cases being an expert in one's subject, which for scientists is normally measured in terms of citations to their work. Bernstein, as I would expect , has an extraordinarily high citation record, but the notability is not clear from the draft--it needs to list the 3 or 4 of his most cited papers, with citation counts from Google Scholar.
As for promotionalism, that's a shortcut word, which in this case means more exactly that the draft is a composite of various things he would like to say about himself. It needs to focus on the actual notability , which is his published work. The information about the drug needs to be added to the drug article. The various government positions and roles need actual evidence that he is in fact the person primarily responsible, and cannot be inferred from his being head of the department . His tedx talk is not material for notability, unless you can find published discussion of it. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGGThanks for this feedback, and I'm glad we're past the discussion of notability.

I've added the number of cites from Google Scholar, as well as referencing his second and third most cited papers as you suggested.

I also added a section to the nesiritide article. I hope that's helpful.

I added several references to the TEDx talk. Having trouble understanding when something is appropriate on wikipedia merely because it's interesting and when it's necessary to support notability. Given that the subject is in fact notable, it seems as though other activities that are interesting to someone interested in the subject belong. I look at a featured article like Ernest_Emerson. I assume it's featured because a consensus believe that it's a good biography. But clearly almost everything in the article isn't of itself notable, is it? Or consider the fact that just about every NCAA div 1 basketball coach has a bio that lists the other schools where that person was a coach. Those high school or college coaching gigs probably aren't the reason they're 'notable', but some would argue that they're interesting.

In the case of this subject, I think the fact that he served in the FDA is interesting, as few notable scientists follow this path.

Anyway, I hope we're over the hump here. Thank you for taking the time and illuminating me on how this works!

Sethgodin (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article you mention was featured in 2007, and contains an excessive amount of material that should be in other articles. I hope the standards now are higher. Not everything an notable person does is relevant-- see WP:EINSTEIN and in this case the claim is implied that he is an expert in the subject discussed, which he is not. I will make what I consider the necessary modifications before I accept it. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

So, I sent you an email concerning another user. You can ignore that, there's now an ANI thread on it. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_111_Apr._2016&oldid=1089584080"