User talk:DGG/Archive 141 Oct. 2018

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

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018
The science publishing landscape

The best on offer, to stretch the metaphor, is the meal kit option, in the form of XML. Where scientific papers are delivered as XML downloads, you get all the ingredients ready to cook. But have to prepare the actual meal of slow food yourself. See Scholarly HTML for a recent pass at heading off XML with HTML, in other words in the native language of the Web.

The argument from real life is a traditional mixture of frictional forces, vested interests, and the classic irony of the principle of unripe time. On the other hand, discoverability actually diminishes with the prolific progress of science publishing. No, it really doesn't scale. Wikimedia as movement can do something in such cases. We know from open access, we grok the Web, we have our own horse in the HTML race, we have Wikidata and WikiJournal, and we have the chops to act.

Links

}}

Metropolitan Opera Guild[edit]

Thank you for cleaning up my first effort to change this page from the former redirect straight to Opera News. I was unaware of this gap in WP content until I stumbled onto it. Much more can be added. I have included it on my watch list and as time permits changes will be made. Oversight from editors like yourself is invaluable. Any suggestions you might have that will help me better navigate the WP world are welcome. 300 edits is a drop in the water. I have much to learn. Mrphilip (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lenskart[edit]

You marked Lenskart as create protected. There is a draft at Draft:Lenskart which on the face of it deserves to be moved to article space. Could you take care of it please? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still referenced to notice and trivia. I do not consider it substantially improved. I am not going to remove protection, but, as usual, any admin who wants to move it can do so. I will then consider whether to send it to afd. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Notability / AfD -- secondary sources based on a press release[edit]

I'd like your opinion on whether we consider a topic or person notable if they have multiple independent WP:SECONDARY WP:RS on them, but it is easy to see that the secondary sources (with by-lines of journalists working for the periodicals) were based mostly or almost entirely on the same press release. I can see an argument for and against such a person/topic being notable. I'm not familiar with any guidelines about this. What is your opinion? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sources are based on pa press release they do not cou nt for notability . They never did, and this has been clairfied by NCORP. If two or more secondary sources have essentially the same cotnent, they either arecopying each other, or a copying the same PR source, or at least are based on it, and even if the original cannot be identified, it's proof of unreliability. I and others have made this argument of many hundreds of afds , and it's never been refuted.
the real problem is that in some fields, unless the subject is truly famous, all available sources are to some extent based on press releases. We haven't fully realized this yet, except in the most obvious examples, like films in some countries. The job of a good press agent consists of getting apparently reliable sources to carry their material. I'm no sure that this can be dealt with by the GNG--either we have to greatly truncate our coverage in many important fields, or we have to base notability on some other criterion. (It has sometimes been said that the fact that secondary sources choose to reprint one particular organization's press releases shows that that organization is notable -- but most industry sources try to accommodate as many firms in the industry as possible, and beyond there it's based mainly on contacts, the most important part of the background necessary to be a good press agent. What it shows is the importance of the particular press agent, and PR people use these placements as their credentials, just as people trying to write paid editing for WP are expected to give references to their other articles ). DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for directing me to WP:NCORP and for the full explanation. Regarding this rule in WP:NCORP:
Examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability:
  • press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials
  • any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism),...
You are saying that this also applies to people or topics, in addition to orgs? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NCORP is not a new guideline--everything there there is basically the GNG sourcing requirements, specialized for companies. The requirement that sources for notability be . sources providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements is standard. Companies are such an issue these days that it was necessary to reiterate the rule , with examples. People are a slightly different problem, because of the SNGs. Except for WP:PROF, which is an alternative to the GNG, we have never consistently decided the relationship between them and the SNG. My own position in most cases is that they too should in general be seen as replacements, but that has never really had consensus. I have suggested that often it be handled by interpreting "presumed" in its legal meaning, if it meets that requirements in the SNG, it is notable unless it can be clearly shown otherwise, and it can not be clearly shown otherwise without a comprehensive search in all reasonably likely sources, which is beyond the resources of most people here--and even with the necessary library resources smd languages and skill, it is normally beyond the time available.
But everything I say above is just how I think the guidelines we use can best be interpreted to give what we consider a reasonable result. We most of the time actually use them to justify our views about what an encyclopedia like WP ought to cover, although many people claim not to not realize it. The effective guidelines are made by our decisions. That's why I usually say something like, "it has been our consistent practice that ...." If I argue to change a guideline, it is on the basis that our decisions have changed and the guideline needs to keep up with it. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ATA[edit]

DGG You haven't responded to my message: "I'm planning an article about the American Theatre of Actors. Will these sources suffice for notability: [1] [2] [3] [4] I plan to write ATA as a theater company rather than as a venue or a BLP of James Jennings, founder of ATA. What are your thoughts? Thank you."

Barkeep49 found "New York theater named after stage and TV actor John Cullum". I found [5]. About a third of the way, the review states:

In its former home Off Broadway, the American Theater of Actors, a warehouse-like room on the second floor of a midtown building with 135 seats on risers, I found Urinetown audacious and exhilarating, riotously and intelligently arch. And my intention was to assess how well the show has accommodated its step up in physical dimensions (at 635 seats, the Henry Miller is far bigger, though far from Broadway big) and also to assess the visibility that its notoriety and success have engendered.

Are the four source in my original message, the Daily Herald and the New York Times enough to establish notability for ATA? Thank you. Vyeh (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reminding me. Tomorrow or Friday. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.

Arbitration

.

  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.

Le_Cirque_Esprit[edit]

Hi there,

I am trying to disclose my Agency's involvement with certain clients. I noticed that you nominated the pages for deletion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:375mon/Le_Cirque_Esprit

How do I go about moving the userspace pages over to mine? I believe that I added the appropriate disclosures to the page, but please correct me if I am wrong. I do see, in the current state that they are in will mean they need some edits (in my userspace) before they will be considered.

Thank you for any guidance! Comeongerry (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(placed in incorrect location-- not seen until just now . DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from NPP[edit]

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

Thanks for your recent work reviewing new articles. Foreign biography articles are often particularly difficult (at least for me), and I saw quite a few of these among your reviews. Thanks and keep up the good work. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.∯WBGconverse 05:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion Follow-Up[edit]

Hi, I noticed your deletion of the Patrick Gunning page due to G12 ("Unambiguous copyright infringement: extensive copyvio from ref 1 and other references"). Do you reckon you can restore the page as a draft so I can address your concerns? (I paraphrased everything as briefly as possible. I absolutely did not copy/paste anything, and so I'd like to see where I went wrong.)

If not, that's fine. I'm not looking to start an edit war. Soulsinsync (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain things further on your talk page later today. I meant to do it before now, but real life got in the way. Sorry. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, maybe tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Page Deletion of Easy Transfer[edit]

Hello, I contested the speedy deletion of Easy Transfer, a page that was tagged for speedy deletion for the following concern: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I believe that while the article talks about the company, it is not intentionally promoting the company's services. All statements are from cited sources and media.

I just wanted a reply to my contest before the page would be deleted, but there was none. As a relatively new contributor, I am saddened by the speedyness of the deletion of quite a few days of research work. I do not see a clear reason why the article was "unambiguous"ly advertising anything. Looking forward to your reply! Thanks. --Peon ruler (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are the obvious sockpuppet of another editor, who was indefinitely blocked for adding advertising material with a promotional username--using an open proxy in both instances. , It has returned without explaining the connection, and have continued to add material which was essentially advertising; this account too has been blocked.
2.The material was added to mainspace despite the conflict of interest, with edits designed to evade or rules requiring use of draft pace for new articles by new editors.
3.The material consisted of long sections of advocacy explaining the underlying problems, a long overpersonal account of how the two inventors devised the scheme and their own individual merits, & direct advertising claims about the security and other benefits. This is appropriate for the firm's web page, not an encyclopedia
4.It was sourced almost entirely to he firms own website, PR sites, mere listings, t mere announcements of funding, and similar. (Tho some are in Chinese, the online translations make it obvious that everything is copied from their own press releases.)
You are, however, quite correct in your statement that we proceed to remove material of this nature as rapidly as we possibly can.

DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An amazingly detailed explanation for a spammer. They were on my talkpage too because I CSD tagged the page. Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
much of it is very similar to what I've said hundreds of times, so it takes just a few minutes -- and it's here for other people to see it.
I find that an explanation of how I know they're a spammer tends to lower the chance that they'll come back, or try to protest further. .
And I know from comments made to me here and elsewhere that an explanation that makes it clear that I've actually read the article and checked the references is much more effective for both spammers and good faith but inexperienced editors than our usual notices. I only sometimes do this because there are just too many, but we really always ought to. We need to at least give the impression that this site is run by humans. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lankenau[edit]

See Talk:Lankenau_Institute_for_Medical_Research/workspace, and notes at article talk page here and at the user's talk page here. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genes[edit]

Why do you think that every human gene is notable and deserves a page? Was it a discussion somewhere? Can you give any link? I would say a lot of genes and their products are not notable at all (in WP sense) because there was nothing published about them...My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may or may not be expressing the current consensus, but I made such arguments earlier. The way to find out is to bring the articles individually to AfD, and there will be a discussion; for others should be involved, not just the two of us. I suggest that you bring them individually, not as a group, because it is usually argued that there may be something more known about a specific one. In situations like that I usually bring one or two, not all, to see what view is taken, and then I can decide better what to do with the others. In that sprit, I will not revert your redirects until after the discussion. By " nothing published", I suppose you are saying they are only in a database and have not been further investigated or ever included in an article. . But for each of them, if they have been given a name, it has to have been on same basis. (If the consensus is that they do not merit a separate article, there is an alternative, which is merging in a list; our articles on the individual chromosomes refer to external lists only ; for an example, see List of minor planets. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I do not have time for nominating these pages for deletion. I can only quickly fix something when I see it. If you know what this particular gene product does and believe the "page" is worth keeping, you are welcome to revert my edits. My very best wishes (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur Hugh Ferry[edit]

Hi back in 2010 you created an article on Wilbur Hugh Ferry but in fact the article Wilbur H. Ferry already existed. I’m going to propose that they be merged. All the best Mccapra (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genericusername57[edit]

@DGG: I need your advice concerning Genericusername57. Please look at Special:Contributions/Genericusername57. I'm only impacted because he did a drive-by peer review of my article. Some of his comments seemed wacky. I noticed that he/she did a similar treatment of several other articles. In addition, he/she put an article up for peer review. What should I do? Vyeh (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and peer reviewed the article he put up. He thanked me and asked a question about biased sources. He read my article further, putting in a couple of needed spaces. I guess he is an editor that wanted his article reviewed, read the section in the instructions about reciprocity and was very enthusiastic. Vyeh (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a very frequently used process, and it is unusual that someone does this so soon after starting here. His comments deal with general non-wiki writing--structure and grammar--rather than wiki-specific format and the like. What he said on your page was sensible enough though only one key thing was important: the shortening of the intro paragraph. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Reviewing the history of the article he put up for peer review, it appears he had worked on it unregistered. Perhaps there is a requirement that one has to be registered to seek peer review, since that was the first contribution. What threw me was his suggestion that I ditch the article's intro in favor of the informal intro I had used in the peer review. Thank you for responding. Vyeh (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wants to can do peer review, just as anyone can edit. It is not a formal process. Nobody is obliged to follow any of the comments there. Looking at it more carefully it seems to be used more than I thought it was, as a sort of test run for GA and FA. I have never participated in those processes, so I've never paid it attention either. I will take a look at the specific issue about the lead and give my advice on the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: My FA mentor (it was a way of getting someone to look at the article!) recommended peer review. COGE has gone through the article and made helpful comments, in the process shortening the lead. Vyeh (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia there are many ways of working, many patterns to develop content. There is enough space for everyone to pick their own pattern of work and their own priorities. I don't work with FA, but I appreciate the people who do. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: User:Genericusername57 found a source only said a book was nominated for a prize, but did not win it. It was a sentence and source I inherited. I had checked it, but missed it partly because it was a Romanian language source. He also caught a duplicate sentence in the body. He's been very helpful in improving the article! Are you coming to Wednesday's meeting in DUMBO? Vyeh (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Kennedy Sr.[edit]

Thank you for your prompt review and edits on Stanley Kennedy Sr. KlausVonVilver (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgii Chornyi[edit]

Thank you for editing of my article Georgii Chornyi. I agree with most your corrections, but ask you to accept some clarifications that I brought in to the article 19-20 October 2018. Geokiv (talk) 6:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

and I agree with most of your corrections also, and made a few more, to use the enWP style of writing book titles, and the usual English sentence structure. It can take several rounds of this to get it right. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Regional power[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Regional power. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello DGG, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

->

Bitwage Wikipedia Page Deletion[edit]

I was chatting with MOJO Hand and he mentioned that we should get in touch. I noticed that the Bitwage page has been taken down. When I had originally created the page, I was using it as a repository of important articles describing the progress of Bitwage over time. However, we had been flagged for potential advertising for some time. I did not understand what about the page was considered an advertisement. However, if you could point to the particular issues, would be happy to update it so that the page is properly formatted for Wikipedia. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanericchester (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are the following problems:

  1. The article is addressed to "you"
  2. Overpersonal account of the founding of the company
  3. Referring to people by the first names alone
  4. Repeated use of straight advertising language, eg "... makes international payroll payments faster, cheaper and easier" "in under 24 hours" "helps employees, freelancers and contractors receive their wages all over the world, "
  5. Inclusion of practical details about how to use the service--this belongs on the firm's own web page only.
  6. Inclusion of routine features as if they were something special.

In addition, there are major problems with the referencing:

  1. Using references that merely mention the company as if they had substantial material. Every reference from something that could be seen as a major reliable source is of this nature,
  2. Using references that are straight PR sites, or based on PR, or are mere announcements.

The only likely way of getting an article on Wikipedia is that the company might become so notable that there will be truly substantial, independent and non-promotional sources, and for someone unconnected with the company to want to write about it. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morning![edit]

Your thoughts - Club Nokia - Atsme✍🏻📧 15:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on which you !voted, has been amended[edit]

In response to objections, I struck the two year moratorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Thank you for your edit! I’d like to inform you that that article isn’t a press based! I’ve gathered all information from google, linked in, and many sources! I founded this source from google and I made it reference for verification so that people easily can understand! He’s an artist so he gave lots of speech in front of press and etc and it’s general! Can you please remove that template, it’d be kind enough! Thanks Shaheba Sultana (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please revert my article because that matches with WP:BLP and all articles had enough citations to verify! WP:RFAA Thank you Shaheba Sultana (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CoinSwitch[edit]

Hi, thanks for looking into the draft of CoinSwitch. I see that it has been deleted for "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia so I may not have known to avoid certain tones or points of view in order to avoid this, but I did make efforts, to the best of my abilities, to ensure a neutral point of view, while adding numerous citations, from reputed publications, wherever possible. I believe the topic is worthy of a Wikipedia article because of the following reasons:

- It is the largest exchange aggregator in the world (based on number of currencies supported). The oldest brand in this industry - Changelly - supports about 1/4th the number and yet has a Wikipedia page of its own.

- It contains neutral, reputed sources for the content mentioned in the article.

- The previous draft of the post (that I began working on) had been sent back. That post lacked sources, and seemed overly promotional (it even had links to 'reviews' of the service). I worked on removing any such material and revamping the post entirely, adding more content and making it neutral. It hurts (and is confusing) to be honest, to face deletion on a post that I personally felt was better than the previous draft. I understand that Wikipedia submissions shouldn't be run by emotions of course, but I'm unable to fully understand how the updated draft was worse than the previous one. Perhaps you could help me with this.

- I don't recall writing the article from a pro-CoinSwitch point of view. If however, that has happened, could you please help me with the changes I can make to rectify this? I'd really appreciate it.


This would also significantly aid me in my future submissions on Wikipedia, so I'd be grateful if you can spare a few minutes of your time on this topic.

Thanks, Ymed07 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it for you to work on, for it might be possible to improve it. One way of looking at promotionalism is that if the article is suitable for a company web page, it is promotional , not encyclopedic; another is that a promotional article gives the information the company would want to give, rather than the information a reader might want to know; yet another, is providing information that would interest none but present or potential participants or clients. associates. Either way, it's promotional. You may not have intended it as such: the nature of some subjects is that it is difficult to write an article at all without it also having large elements of promotionalism; the world is so full of promotional writing that people naturally write in that style; Wikipedia in particular, has so much promotional content from the earlier years when standards were lower that people assume that's what is wanted here. It will take us a long time tor remove it all, but the least we can do is not add to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will work on the page now, and hopefully can come to you for assistance if required. Can you also help me with how to upload images to Wikipedia? I just created a new page - Ben Böhmer, which already had a German page but not one in English. But I'm not sure about how to upload images for the page. Thanks. Ymed07 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use strike-through markup[edit]

@DGG: Instead of deleting a key word from one of your comments at a talk page, as you did here nearly an hour after posting it, I request that you strike through the text to let other editors know that you reconsidered the harshness of your criticism. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do--I imagine I'm a little irritable at either being misunderstood or misunderstanding. (not just there, a few other discussions at the same time) DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

editing rules - Petrowskaja[edit]

Dear DGG, thanks a lot for advices and correcting. Corrected now also my rejected draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andriy_Lyubka. Hope it fits better now. Chr. Cphweise (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Patricia_Easterbrook_Roberts[edit]

Thank you for your comments on my attempt to get this previously rejected article over the line. I am new to creating and editing articles, and it is useful to have advice on how much to include, or not, as far as supporting quotes go. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_141_Oct._2018&oldid=998756541"