User talk:DGG/Archive 150 Jul. 2019

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


the WMF/enWP crisis[edit]

Please note that all responses are likely to be delayed during the crisis at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Unlke some of the admins I know and like best, I'm not resigning my adminship or leaving WP, but I find it discouraging to work under the profound contempt for the community by those who think they are in charge, combined with their incompetence at what they are trying to do. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I consider the WMF statements as reasonably satisfactory--except that they still think arb com is not suitable for the full text of the confidential material. t (so after 3 or 3 days of inactivity, I'm back.) DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


What's going on with African Studies Review and African Issues?[edit]

This considers the journals related with the following history

  • African Studies Review, v.1 1958 - onwards. ( v. 62 in 2019 )
    • Issue: Quarterly Journal of Opinion (1971-1999) and African Issues (2000-2004) (1971 - 2004)
    • ASA Review of Books (1975 - 1980)
    • Africana Newsletter (1962 - 1964)

That's rather disjointed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes. European learned societies tended to do that sort of thing. Drives librarians nuts. Fortunately, the tables of contents are online, so it is possible to see the rationale:
  • African Studies Review is the main title. Combination research journal and newsletter,and book reviews

They also published several supplementary titles:

  • Issue:Quarterly Journal of Opinion, retitled as African Issues. , also a research journal, but focussed on current topics & a little less formal. .
  • Africana Newsletter published bibliographies and research guides for a few issues
  • ASA Review of books, was a book review supplement.

This is part of a general pattern: societies had a journal, and as the academic world expanded in the 1970s, decided the could profitably publish several related topics and charge extras, and they did a lot of experiemntation to find something that worked. As the academic world contracted in the 2000s, they combined them back again.

The key factor in the economics of learned societies, now and then, is that membership includes the journal. Normally, many or most of the members have joined primarily to get the journal. They want to keep the membership rate affordable, which can only be done by charging libraries a good deal extra. This causes all sorts of secondary effects, such as a great resistance to open access, because if there were open access, they'd lose members. Many schemes for open access, especially in the humanities, have foundered because of this problem. Publishers kept telling me there was no way around this, so I had a graduate seminar do a joint project on a particular society and its publications, and they did a pretty good analysis and found the publishers were right. Varmus, who developed the first real open access scheme in 1999, dealt with it by proposing to directly subsidize the societies. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what should be done to these journals? Get merged/consolidated to African Studies Review? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I think merge them. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Feel free to polish things as needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous 

}}
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Draft:Aalisha Panwar[edit]

Hi,

Please check this draft. I think Aalisha Panwar is fully protected.— Bukhari (Talk!) 07:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fully protected, but rather blocked on the meta list of prohibited article titles. This is a list covering all the language WPs. The entry for it unfortunately does not give information about why it is blocked--most entries do give that information--, so I suppose attempts were previously made to introduce promotional articles on the individual in several other WPs. Though I have the technical ability to over-ride this, the article is not at all my field, and I have no knowledge whatsoever of the languages such an article is likely to have been written in; therefore, I'm not comfortable dealing with it . Perhaps one of my page-watchers reading this can help here. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing[edit]

I have chainsawed this draft into proper shape, and formally request that you retract the MfD. DS (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly did improve it enough. Good work. (I see you dealt with the problem of rewriting the plot by simply removing it, which makes very good sense, because, after all, the most reliable source for plot is the work itself, which you we both said we had not read. I should have thought of doing that myself, and I will next time something like this occurs. Thanks for showing me the way. ) DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


José Gilberto Montoya[edit]

Hey, you're the resident king of WP:NACADEMIC, so I was wondering if you could take a peek at José Gilberto Montoya and see what you think? He's an associate professor at Stanford, but I'm not sure that puts him over the line, and I can't find enough other secondary sources to help me make a decision. No rush, whenever you have time. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

checking Google Scholar, extremely high citations show his influenceas one of the authors of major practice guidelines , so he's notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your crossword clue[edit]

It's some sort of Android software checking tool for single-celled organisms? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday July 14: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island[edit]

July 14, 2-7pm: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island

You are invited to join us at the "picnic anyone can edit" in the lovely Southpoint Park on Roosevelt Island, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

This year the Wiknic will double as a "Strategy Salon" (more information at Wiknic page), using open space technology to address major questions facing our social movement.

2–7pm - come by any time!
Our picnicking area is at Southpoint Park, south of the tram and subway, and also just south of the Cornell Tech campus.
Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia NYC banner!

Celebrate our 13th year of wiki-picnics! We hope to see you there! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 21:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

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


Artel Great[edit]

Hello,

I was wondering if you could help me. You see, I'm trying to re-create the article mentioned above, which was deleted by JzG on May 20, 2010. Now it seems that JzG is on a wikibreak, considering that his/her most recent contribution occurred on March 14, 2019. I read on JzG's user page that you have his/her "permission to undelete or unprotect any article (he/she has) deleted". That being said, would you please be willing to unprotect either the article mentioned above or the article Artel Kayàru, which JzG also deleted on May 20, 2010? I'll have you know I've created a draft titled Artel Great; I've written it in a way so that it could pass per WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR.

Please ping me or please feel free to leave a message on my talk page to respond. Thank you. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I unintentionally appear to sound impatient, but I’m still waiting for a response from you. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think one significant role is enough, but I will let someone else review the draft. I commented there. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019[edit]

Hello DGG,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the WMF/enWP crisis[edit]

Please note that all responses are likely to be delayed during the crisis at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Unlke some of the admins I know and like best, I'm not resigning my adminship or leaving WP, but I find it discouraging to work under the profound contempt for the community by those who think they are in charge, combined with their incompetence at what they are trying to do. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I consider the WMF statements as reasonably satisfactory--except that they still think arb com is not suitable for the full text of the confidential material. t (so after 3 or 3 days of inactivity, I'm back.) DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


What's going on with African Studies Review and African Issues?[edit]

This considers the journals related with the following history

  • African Studies Review, v.1 1958 - onwards. ( v. 62 in 2019 )
    • Issue: Quarterly Journal of Opinion (1971-1999) and African Issues (2000-2004) (1971 - 2004)
    • ASA Review of Books (1975 - 1980)
    • Africana Newsletter (1962 - 1964)

That's rather disjointed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes. European learned societies tended to do that sort of thing. Drives librarians nuts. Fortunately, the tables of contents are online, so it is possible to see the rationale:
  • African Studies Review is the main title. Combination research journal and newsletter,and book reviews

They also published several supplementary titles:

  • Issue:Quarterly Journal of Opinion, retitled as African Issues. , also a research journal, but focussed on current topics & a little less formal. .
  • Africana Newsletter published bibliographies and research guides for a few issues
  • ASA Review of books, was a book review supplement.

This is part of a general pattern: societies had a journal, and as the academic world expanded in the 1970s, decided the could profitably publish several related topics and charge extras, and they did a lot of experiemntation to find something that worked. As the academic world contracted in the 2000s, they combined them back again.

The key factor in the economics of learned societies, now and then, is that membership includes the journal. Normally, many or most of the members have joined primarily to get the journal. They want to keep the membership rate affordable, which can only be done by charging libraries a good deal extra. This causes all sorts of secondary effects, such as a great resistance to open access, because if there were open access, they'd lose members. Many schemes for open access, especially in the humanities, have foundered because of this problem. Publishers kept telling me there was no way around this, so I had a graduate seminar do a joint project on a particular society and its publications, and they did a pretty good analysis and found the publishers were right. Varmus, who developed the first real open access scheme in 1999, dealt with it by proposing to directly subsidize the societies. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what should be done to these journals? Get merged/consolidated to African Studies Review? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I think merge them. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Feel free to polish things as needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous 

}}
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Fixing[edit]

I have chainsawed this draft into proper shape, and formally request that you retract the MfD. DS (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly did improve it enough. Good work. (I see you dealt with the problem of rewriting the plot by simply removing it, which makes very good sense, because, after all, the most reliable source for plot is the work itself, which you we both said we had not read. I should have thought of doing that myself, and I will next time something like this occurs. Thanks for showing me the way. ) DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-notable pages created by User:Sistaginna[edit]

User:DGG, can you please review a list of pages created by User:Sistaginna, which very clearly fails WP:GNG.Meeanaya (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

some seem weaker than others. The ed. needs advice, but it isn't my subject area. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Jung (bishop)[edit]

I notice that you accepted this after I declined it. Did I make a mistake here? ~Kvng (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three reasons: From at least 2008 it has been the consensus that all Bishops of a major religion are notable, tho we have gradually whittled away at that for bishops of minor religions, independent breakaway churches, bishops of churches not organized on a territorial basis, & interim appointments.. Additionally, it is very rare that we delete an article that meets the notability standards of the deWP--as a general rule the German WP has higher and much more consistent standards than we do. (They cite references more informally, and there are other differences, especially with COI., so sometimes there are problems in those areas.) I'd apply this also to the frWP, though it less often comes up here; I've talked with people who know the others, and I would not apply it so completely anywhere else, but nlWP is very close. Also, historically at least Wurzburg has been an extremely important bishopric since the early middle ages--until 1803 they were Princes as well as bishops--we have articles on most of the historic bishops Prince-Bishopric of Würzburg and almost all the modern Roman Catholic Diocese of Würzburg--the deWP has full articles on every one without exception.
It is normal that one reviewer accepts an article that another one declines. It certainly happens with my declines; I do not even keep track. Usually, of course, it's after improvement., but sometimes only trivial improvement or even just the same. That why we have custom that usually the same reviewer doesn't review the same article twice. Sometimes I even re-assure the submitter who is upset that I declined their article that the next time someone else will review. Acceptance is after all only a preliminary judgment--it still goes to NPP, (Kudpung and I worked very hard for a long time to make certain that all articles from AfC did go to NPP.
It should be possible to have automatic notifications--both for this, and for the opposite situation, nominating an accepted article at AfD. I 'm not sure it would do anything other than increase arguments, and I would give it a very low priority. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of this. ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eirlys Hunter[edit]

Hi DGG, Thank you for your comments on the Eirlys Hunter page. You stated that it "reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism" and asked that it be expanded with properly sourced content. Thanks for your feedback. I feel that it references a range of reliable and authoritative sources including a number of newspaper articles and quality NZ literary sites such as Creative NZ, Storylines and the Book Council. I've added one more source (Radio NZ). However it also seems to me like a fair summary of her literary career, listing her achievements and publications with some reviews but without sensationalism. Please let me know if you think the article is still considered as unsatisfactory, or which sections in particular need more work. Regards, -Pippipip (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Hi there, further to my query above, given the extra source added and some more editing since carried out by other editors, can you please consider removing the Cleanup-PR template from this article? Thanks. --Pippipip (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of IEEE Fellows[edit]

Hello DGG,

I hope you are doing well. I am writing to you because I saw that you reviewed my article List of IEEE Fellows. Another editor has suggested that Wikipedia doesn't really need a page like this since most of the fellows actually don't have their own page. I do agree with their point to some extent, but the notability guideline for academics says that all IEEE Fellows are notable. Even though most don't have their standalone articles right now, they might in the future. What do you think? Should I continue creating the lists or should I delete the ones that I have made? You can see the other editor's point of view on my talk page.HRShami (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My own view is that since all IEEE fellows are ntoable, the llist serves also to indicate the many articles needed. We have done similar lists in many other subjects with good effect. Such lists have on occassion be challenged at AfD, and results vary-- consensus at WP is always a little unpredictable. If it is challenged, let me know, and I will comment. What would help the most is if you added some information to the items in list format--birth and death, date of election, and it possible workplace and specialty. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point of view too. A list will highlight all the articles we need to make and we can start working on them. Can you please take a look at this List of fellows of IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Society and let me know what you think? I am adding the year of election, citation and name. When you say date of election, do you mean the date or the year? Birth and death would be a little difficult to find. In my own experience, even after thorough research on a subject, I am mostly not able to find their birth date. I will try to find the workplace they were working at when they were nominated and add it to the list for each fellow. HRShami (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they elect more than once a year, and you can find the exact date use it; if it is going to be difficult, year is enough--the idea is to give some idea of years of greatest activity. Over time, we'll accumulate birth date and --eventually-- death dates -- these are important identifiers and will tie into Wikidata and to the ongoing efforts to build a database of references to all scientific publications-- from those we'll eventually be able to get brief bios. Once you've got this going, the next step is to learn how to enter what you have into Wikidata. I unfortunatley don't have time to work there myself, but I can guide you to the experts in this. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will get more details about how many times fellows are elected in a year. Wikidata sounds interesting. I would love to learn how to work there. I think it would be better if I add data for the birth and death dates to Wikidata of each specific person, instead of adding them to the list page. Please put me in touch with someone who can help me with Wikidata. HRShami (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:World Religions and Spirituality Project[edit]

Dear DGG,

I removed almost the entire draft and instead created a simple article based entirely on external sources. I would like to resubmit it, but first I need feedback to know if more should be done.

Two considerations:

  • I think the article is relevant because WRSP publishes encyclopedic profiles that are written by academics, and the groups profiles are often poorly documented. It can serve as a reliable source for Wikipedia. It currently has 58 citations on Wikipedia as far as I can tell. [1] [2]
  • I wonder if anything else from the original article, such as discussion of the "Special Projects", has any place in the article. It was too long and the presentation was strange, especially in the way I listed the Special Project Directors. There are two reasons why I thought this was meaningful. (1) Showing that the Special Projects are directed by recognized academics, several of whom have articles on wikipedia, might help establish its status as a reliable source. (2) Showing some of the project's variety.

I appreciate any advice. Thank you. Dussault (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dussault, give me another week, please. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsbet.io[edit]

Hello DGG,

Thank you for reviewing my article. I noticed you have marked it for deletion. I have updated the cites linked to the article, including majority secondary party articles. I feel I wrote about the company fairly and referenced legitimate sources. Regardless of the industry, I think the company is relevant, as it is working with global brands.

Please let me know, which section of the article would need more work. I would really appreciate the advice.

Thanks. -Smehh (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Klea Pineda[edit]

Hi there, aside from being a reality show winner, Klea Pineda has been gaining notability nowadays as she co-starred in television series and some movies. She has also been competing in modeling contests internationally. I just created a draft for her and I hope you can check if it's acceptable to be moved on article space. Thank you! -Spectacularosiris (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacularosiris, this is not one of the fields where I have any particullar competence. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Just because

--EEMIV (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of people in long marriages[edit]

Hi DGG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 June 26#List of people in long marriages, which you participated in, as:

Endorse, leave the draft for now. It's pretty clear that the original AFD close is considered to be correct here and that any restoration would require more than a title change due to e.g concerns about the inclusion criteria being arbitrary and WP:OR. A bit fewer people have commented on the draft and most of the specific comments appear to endorse keeping i, so that is what we'll go for here - although from the comments here I'd infer that it probably merits some more work before it could be restored to mainspace.

Since the AfD, I changed the scope of the list to address the Wikipedia:No original research concern and added a "Background" section. I do not want to recreate "a list of people in long marriages" from scratch since it would not make sense because it would contain the same entries as "a list of people in the longest marriages". I therefore do not know what else to do to make the draft acceptable for mainspace. Would you consider reviewing draft for what can be improved to address the deletion concerns? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, I commented. Let me know when to look at it again. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. Thank you for your very good advice about how to make the draft stronger. I added 41 more sources when I implemented your suggestions by (1) changing the section title to "list of marriages reported to be more than 80 years" and (2) adding "Death dates (if known)" column to table and filling out the table with death dates that can be verified from reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your comment here, I have submitted the draft for review. I did not move the article to mainspace myself since I previously moved it to mainspace and the move was contested. Thank you for providing feedback about the draft! Cunard (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re Elizabeth L. Cless nearly new article[edit]

Hi DGG. A quick note--I've completed a major edit on my article. I hope you'll be able to remove the tags on it. The edit summary: 15 changes/rewrites. Removed absolute "first" claim, lessened personal style and rhetoric, tightened, added/improved references, made minor fixes. Please take a look! Thanks.LM6407 (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban?[edit]

Do I read it correctly that you handed out a topic ban to me for the Flyingd-dispute? The Banner talk 10:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: If I understand correctly, he is trying to say you are subject to the editing restrictions that a topic ban entails, but the scope of the restrictions is limited to List of airliner shootdown incidents (and not it's talk page).
I'm here because I'm, frankly, somewhat baffled by your decision. Ignoring the bizarre suggestion that we do the opposite of Dutch Wikipedia so that both courses are implemented somewhere (which I suspect you knew was bizarre), I'm confused by the sanctions themselves. I won't question the topic ban for Flyingd, which may have been necessary and was, I think, within your discretion as closer. However, I feel I should challenge your topic ban of Robotje: even in the ANI, nobody ever suggested that Robotje's conduct was problematic, much less that it merited sanctions. I don't really know how sanctions work, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, you can't impose topic bans without community consensus unless there are active arbitration remedies (discretionary sanctions), and there was no such consensus here. Consequently, I fail to see how you can topic ban him, especially without providing any explanation for why, as if the discussion made it plainly obvious.
I'm also confused by your rationale for the topic ban of The Banner, in particular the suggestion that he might think he's not a participant in the dispute. The Banner's own behavior and statements do not, that I can see, lend themselves to such a conclusion, and a scan of Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents shows plainly that he's involved. In fact, he's more involved in the dispute itself than Robotje is; he merely disappeared when I asserted in the ANI thread that his behavior was more problematic than Flyingd's, making Robotje the only one left who believed that Flyingd's behavior merited sanctions. Apparently, The Banner did not disappear entirely, although his activity did drop substantially after my post, leaving Robotje far more important to the discussion than he had previously been. I don't think it's fair that Robotje received much harsher sanctions merely, that I can see, because he was the one posting regularly in ANI.
Ultimately, because your findings were so odd, I'm not convinced you actually diligently read the ANI discussion. If you did, I respectfully ask that you clarify your reasoning for the sanctions you chose. Otherwise, I respectfully ask that you reconsider your closure. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I took a step back out out of self-protection due to health-reasons. The Banner talk 14:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was perhaps a little ironic: it was intended to emphasise was what I had said just before, that whichever way we did it makes absolutely no difference to the encyclopedia. (and for that matter, an/i cannot actually conclude which way is better. It does not directly deal with content) ) Most quarrels based originally about content that are this extended are over something significant in some way--usually, the interpretation of something that is or could--however remotely--be interpreted in some manner to be controversial. But this is controversial is no way whatsoever. When we have such an extended dispute over something inconsequential, it's almost always a matter of style (those quarrels are peculiar also, but they seem to be a recurrent feature of enWP. They are extended generally because there is perfectly good reason for either position, but at least there's the question of what ought to be the better.) I read the whole of the enWP discussion. puzzled because I could not figure out why anybody would have thought it made a difference--I read it a second time, and concluded that it did not.
I can only conclude that the dispute arose because of previous disagreements. However, as was hinted in the discussion, these arose at the nlWP. The basis for them can only be figured out there, and its the business of the people there to deal with it. (Even had I thought it appropriate to consider it at enWP, I would have had to rely on a rough translation, and would thus be unable to figure out the implications and tone of what had been said there--this is true even of discussions in other WPs where I know the language--the different manner of discussions and the special meanings of terms used in the discussions makes it almost impossible for someone not closely familiar with that WP to accurately understand the true sense of what is said.)
What I said is essentially the equivalent of a very narrow no-fault topic or interaction ban, as in fact had been suggested. It is in my opinion not generally helpful to try to establish blame in disputes like this. My experience from arb com is except in the truely obvious cases, different unbiased people will see this differently--even when the sequence of events is clear, it usually comes down to whether the blame should be on person who was provoked, or the person who did the provoking, and the responsibility is generally on both, because either of them could have prevented the quarrel. The purpose of ani/i is not to punish or blame, but to stop further disruption. Some admins do not like the principle of no-fault conclusions--myself, I think they are usually the best solution. I base this on my own method of avoiding disputes--after two replies or so, I just stop. If I am right, other people will have bene convinced, and if I cannot convince people after two tries, further ones won't do any better. If other people did likewise, there would be very few quarrels here. That's certainly true in this case--either side could simply have stopped, because there is no sense in arousing bad feelings over something as trivial as this. There are things in the world--and even on WP--that actually matter. One could argue that honing one's skills on such things serves as a sort of debate training for real political or other issues, but that's using WP for a purpose destructive of building the encyclopedia.
My different treatment of The Banner was specifically because--as he has just said himself right above on this page--he had thought it advisable to step back from the issue. There was therefore no need to compel him to stop--he had already done so. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the clarification: this all makes sense. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freudenberg[edit]

Hi DGG,

As you suggested here I have created a new corporate structure section for the Freudenberg Group based on same section in the German article. I have included sources everywhere, including those for the financials dating back to 2002. I have inserted red links for those Group companies that have an own article in the German Wikipedia. Here is the draft.

What do you think? Thank you very much in advance for your help. Conandcon (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there this week, I hope. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much! Have a good start into the week. Best, Conandcon (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Woolley (CEO)[edit]

Hi. I really have nothing to go on other than a sneaky suspicion, but I get a real funny feeling when a brand new editor begins working on an abandoned draft. Particularly when that draft was originally created by a blocked editor (User:IzzyComm). I came to you since you had commented on the notability, and I agree that they are notable, I'm just concerned that this might be another sock, but I really don't have enough to open an SPI. Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 16:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: I think there's plenty of behavioral evidence there and filed. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 found the evidence sufficient to actually run CU, although apparently the accounts are (technically) unrelated. I moved the draft back to draftspace because the CoI issues have still not been resolved. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, Compassionate727. Onel5969 TT me 19:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not noteworthy enough[edit]

Hello DGG. You have just rejected my submission about the Britsh Painter Richard Harrison saying it is not noteworthy enough. I am puzzled. You say there aren't enough independent references of interest. One of the main references to this artist is a book that was written by the late Brian Sewell about the artist and his paintings. Sewell was the art critic for the London Evening Standard for 25 years before he died. He was pretty well known in the media and on TV, and Richard Harrison is the only painter that he wrote a book about. This in itself is noteworthy, let alone what Sewell actually said about the artist, namely "Old masters like Goya, Rembrandt and Delacroix might in some sense regard him as their heir". I am puzzled as to why you do not consider this artist to be sufficiently noteworthy to be in Wikipedia ? Best Wishes, Bettina My user name is "EklerBettina EklerBettina (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EklerBettina (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EklerBettina, it was a little too evaluative, and perhaps borderline, but I decided to edit it a little and accept it. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG. Thank you very mcuh for editing my submission and then accepting it. I really appreciate your kind attention in this matter. Best Wishes Bettina. EklerBettina (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/DragonComander[edit]

Hi! A busy first day for User:DragonComander - a bunch of headings and categories-only drafts created. Pity he doesn't seem to speak English. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As translations go, they're not all that bad--they are better than the usual almost hopeless Google translations. They are not always idiomatic, and improvements are needed in other respects. (some duplicate existing articles) I'm giving him some advice; I think he should be taught, and encouraged. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killian Belliard (french personal trainer)[edit]

Hello DGG,

I was creating the article last night, and I appreciate your prompt review of it. I was actually still editing the article when you reviewed it, and I admit it had some missing references. I need your advice about the nature of the references, I searched for newspaper references and magazines, but it's a bit limited when it comes to models indeed. Would you mind giving me some time to find better references? Is the language of the references an issue? Can I use french references?

Also, I'm in the process of creating the French version of this article, which is more relevant to this person since he's french.

Thanks in advance, I await your feedback if possible.

Alaaxvii (talk · contribs), You have 6 more days to add references. The English WP covers the world on equal terms, and there's no prejdice against people notable primarily in a non-English speaking country. French references are perfectly fine. If you use them, give the reference to the original , but add an English translation of at least the title so people here can judge.., But the real problem is that the references must be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Any number of photographs of him in various media are not substantial references. Legal information about his business is considered as a mere notice, which verifies the business exists, but does not show notability . Customers' reviews are irrelevant and better omitted--we consider them advertising. What yo will need is those substantial references--he has to be actually written about--we do not infer that from the prominence of his photos. Taking a guess, you'll do better trying to prove him a notable model than trying to prove his business notable. (Businesses have the particularly strict sourcing requirements at WP:NCORP.
I haven't the least idea of the view at the French WP about articles in fields like his. Each language WP uses its own standards. As for us at enWP, it's fair to say that in general we have been increasingly strict about notability of people in his field over the last few years--don't judge by those that may have been accepted earlier. Whether we should or not be this strict is not the issue--I must in all fairness give you advice based upon what we in fact do, not what we ought to be doing.
If you think you will need more time than 6 days, ask at the AfD discussion that the article be "Draftified", which will give you 6 months to work on it.
(and , by the way, please sign your comments by typing a strign of 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end. ) DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 11:51:07, 15 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Cubs3020[edit]


Hello DGG.

I am trying to understand your reason for your declining my latest submission. I updated the first submission with references that I felt satisfied Wikipedia's regulations. Bryce is clearly an expert in his field as evidenced by these references and his forging a career in multiple media (author, podcast, television host). For example, why is the Wikipedia page for Del Irani, one of his co-hosts on Escape from the City, allowed, and Bryce's is not? Is it because Del is a journalist and Bryce has two professions, presenter and buyers agent? Is my language incorrect? What would be you suggestion on how to improve my entry on Bryce?

Thanks in advance for your advice and help. 

Cubs3020 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs3020 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the other individual notable either. The article was written two years ago when our standards were lower. But even if he is, that article is at least a plain biographical description in neutral terms, not a article written in a fan or promotional style: "regular keynote speaker", "contributes to many", "leading voice" I gave that as one of the two reasons for declining, not just the lack of notability. As for notability , most of the sources are the bio write ups in the places he publishes or speaks, which are not independent (and normally written by his own press agent ) . The others are just mentions of him in articles about the show listing all the presenters. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hustle culture Prod[edit]

Hello I just wanted to let you know I contested your prod on Hustle culture because there are at least 2 reliable sources Supporting use of this term. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else seems to have listed it for AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hustle culture. I commented there. I had in fact read the two articles in detail before the prod--I explain it's use in those articles at the AfD. But of course there is nothing atall wrong with having a prod go to afd for a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, journal search links[edit]

See Template:Infobox journal#Search links if you haven't already. It adds a couple of useful links to the infobox (see [3] for what that looks like). Those aren't displayed to readers, just people who choose to see those links. Lets you verify/determine abbreviations quickly, and also look up indexing on MIAR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance on AfC submission[edit]


Hello Mr. Goodman,

I am trying to create a Wikipedia entry for Recovery Centers of America, one of the largest addiction treatment providers in the United States, however it seems I may not have been as impartial as I would have liked while writing the article. It honestly wasn't my intent to create an advertisement, my aim was rather to create a very thorough article with as much information about Recovery Centers of America as I had available to me from 3rd party sources. Can you please offer some insight into what I can change or remove to get the article in line with Wikipedia standards?

Your help in this matter is much appreciated.

First, I want to thank you for following our rules and making the proper declarations!.
There are two problems: the content and the sourcing.. Sources need to be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Most of your references are press releases, either prwire or a publication reprinting prwire. Some are just directory information. Others look like newspaper articles, but are not independent, because they merely reprint what you told them. Some, like the Inquirer or NBC, are general information about the problem of addiction combined with a interview where they reprint what you told them. Some are just announcements of hte opening of a facility. And a fe are just directory listings. There is not a single one which fully meets the requirements.
Most of the content is a list of individual centers and the specific services they provide; this belongs on your web site, not an encyclopedia. Much of the rest is payment information, ditto.
It is extremely difficult for a person with direct COI to write an acceptable WP article. What they usually produce is just what you have produced, the information that they would like the public to know, especially prospective clients. That what PR work consists of, and there's nothing wrong with it in its proper places. Announcing your existence and fee structure to prospective clients can be a useful activity. But an encyclopedia article gives what a member of the general public who has heard of your centers might want to know. This does include the number of centers and the general locations. It also includes information about the growth of your company, but since I see it's a private company that may not be available.
If you can find proper encyclopedic sources, you can try again , but without them it will be impossible to have an article. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Attain_(consulting_firm)[edit]

We could use your wisdom here. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem user[edit]

Hi the User:Tildemanana is extremely prolific [4] but their talkpage is crammed with reviewer notifications for sourcing and notability or moves to draft space by reviewers including yourself. I really feel that they should go through AFC for all their creations. Is there anything you can do or should I create an ANI? Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are all that bad. The most recent ones moved have several good and apparently appropriate references copied from the Afrikaans articles, and I would not have draftified many of them. (The one I did draftify had only one very general reference). The main thing they needed was use of inline footnotes to those references (although it is not actually required except for BLP, it has become our custom to use them whenever possible) The standard for accepting AfCs is that the article would probably pass AfD, and I do not think most of the ones with good but general references would have been deleted. Many very well established editors here routinely make such article stubs, and in practice neither I nor anyone else challenges them. The enWP is I think unique in its sourcing requirements. The deWP which I think better quality and stricter than the enWP accepts general references and never references to the degree we do; the frWP, which I think equal in quality simlar references in less detail.
There have been notability problems with 4 areas: primary schools, where we normally do not make articles; and routine building on university campuses, where we do not make articles unless they are historic or otherwise special; churches, where we usually do not make articles unless they are historic; and local companies. In many of those cases it would probably be better to merge rather than draftify, because there is unlikely to be enough possibility of improvement for a separate article--and some brought to AfD have in fact been closed as a merge. Some of this is that it's harder for us to tell what counts as historic in South Africa than in the US or UK, and possibly a number of these would I think qualify.
It's just a matter of learning our conventions. I will give some focussed advice.
Looking at the talk page, the main thing I notice is the condescending tone of most of our notices. I sometimes wonder that we keep any of the new editors . DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 19 July 2019 (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.Katietalk 14:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Lettice Bryan (new entry) addressed[edit]

Please allow the new draft of the new "Lettice Bryan" entry to become a new entry. I addressed the lack of proper citations and added the importance of the author. It is in my "sandbox" but I'm not sure I followed the proper procedure to get it moved. Sorry - I'm new at this. Iluvwipdia (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iluvwipdia, Please see WP:Close paraphrase, and rewrite the section describing the cookbook completely. The only safe way to do it is to try to write it from scratch without looking at the previous text or the material in Resor's website teaching with themes. Then consider once more wether the articles should be about the book, or the person. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but it may be a few days before I have the time to make the suggested changes. Iluvwipdia (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just created and submitted new entry for The Kentucky Housewife to address problem described above. Followed suggestion above for improving citations and avoiding plagiarism. Removed detailed information about the cookbook and submitted as a separate entry. Added citation to Resor's blog "Mrs. Bryan’s “Kentucky Housewife”: Managing a Household in the 1830s" because that is where I got the idea and the basic information for Lettice Bryan entry. Hope you can publish both as Bryan and her cookbook are significant in early 19th century American history. Iluvwipdia (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

afd?[edit]

[5]. I'm guessing that given that you work in that area a lot, it was simply a typo. If not, I'm curious as to the meaning. — Ched :  ?  — 03:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:10:37, 24 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by LowlanderToo[edit]


Thanks for your advice at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stephen_Buckland . I guess my initial reaction was of despondence after I thought that I had responded well to SiTH's advice but as a user of other parts of WP I do value the care going into the preparation of articles. I have cut the whole article back considerably following your advice pretty closely. Then I left it while doing other things that were more fun. Can I call on your valuable advice whether you reckon it is now close to acceptable? Then what? Thanks. LowlanderToo (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LowlanderToo (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC) LowlanderToo, just 2 thinga more. see the draft . DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Kadyr Yusupov[edit]

Dear DGG, I updated the originally declined article on Kadyr Yusupov, taking into account your suggestions. Please have a look! Thanks. Alfred Dash 1975 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little copyediting for conciseness, but he real problem is WP:ADVOCACY--the article is written in defense o fthe person. WP does not do advocacy, does not exist to right wrongs, is not for the purpose of arousing justified indignation to protect the innocent. Many other publications do that, and there's nothing in the least wrongwith that. But it's not what encyclopedias are for. You need to change the tone of it sound more neutral, like an uninvolved reporter, not an advocate. And you should remove it from your user page--we don't keep copies of articles there . DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Stephanie Dabney moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Stephanie Dabney, is too promotional written to remain published.We do not build a WP article from a tring of reviews. , but use the reviews to show the importance of her work, . . I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject Stephanie Dabney certainly meets all guidelines of notability. Reading the direct quotes about her contribution to dance in listed sources that include NYTimes, LA Times, Washington Post, and Dance Magazine, as well as the fact that she performed at The 1984 Summer Olympics proves that she is more than worthy. I just attempted to edit an article of someone based in Trinidad. Though I have family from Trinidad, I could find no one who knew of her. Even then I researched the entry and could not find any substantial information about that subject. Instead of slapping a notability charge against that entry, I wrote a note in the page's talk space asking another editor to take a look at the work to see if the subject met notability. I want to ask if you have bias against my work? I ask because the Stephanie Dabney, like all people that I write about, is a notable subject with numerous verified sources.

Aquariusveritas (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat the question asked of you previously: the nature of your work seems to indicate that you might be a paid editor. You gave above a reason for the article of KF that he had helped you with a medical problem, but I don't se that this is relevantto the other two articles.

It also seems from the style very likerly that rather than writing the text of these articles yourself, that you have composed it by assembling pieces from reviews and other sources. This is not permitted. . Unless you prommptly deal with these problem, and make the appropriate WP:COI and WP:PAID declarations, it's going to leave us with two choices 1)delete the articles, and wait unti lsomeone writes a proper article or 2) stubbify the article, since the people do seem to be notable , reducing it to the basic biogrpahic information needed to show notability, andwait for some other editor to do it properly. As an administrator here, I have the responsibility of making sure WP is free of copyvio and of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'll repeat my previous assertion. I am not a paid editor. If you look at the bulk of my articles, they are dance related. I am currently writing a series of entries about dancers. As you can see from my most recent edits, I am a fan of dance and work to fix faulty entries. As an editor, you can see that the notability of the subject Stephanie Dabney cannot possibly be questioned particularly when the numerous high quality news articles that I used to compile her entry are taken into account. You do not care for my style of writing, that however does not mean that my style is flawed, and it certainly does not call for an accusation that I am a paid editor. An example of my most recent edits on other existing dance files: Kevin McKenzie, a flawed file without proper adequate sources until I completely rewrote it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_McKenzie_(dancer)

Geoffrey Holder, a poorly written entry that I started rewriting though it will take additional work to fix all that is wrong with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Holder

John Tara, another flawed entry that requires additional rewriting though it is now with proper attributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taras

Prior to that I edited and fixed the entries of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuriko_Kajiya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiomara_Reyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillian_Murphy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sascha_Radetsky

What all of these entrants have in common is that they are dancers and that I have added information to them that previously did not exist. I have not been paid for this work.

2) What makes Stephanie Dabney relevant at least to me is that she suffered horribly because of her HIV complications and yet she has continued to speak about her condition and the progress that she is not making, even though she is committed to continuing to fight. I cannot include that information in her entry because it has not been covered by a news source. All of that aside, accusing me of being a paid writer particularly after all of the hard work I've put into all of my files is inappropriate. I think I wrote this before: if I was paid for my work, I would mention it. Instead I write about the subjects that I care about and the people I admire.

3) As to review quotes not being used in articles, this is news to me as I see it done in articles of movies, tv, and music stars every day. For example, in Madonna's entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer): In 1978, Madonna dropped out of college and relocated to New York City.[20] She had little money while working as a waitress at Dunkin' Donuts and with modern dance troupes, taking classes at the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater and eventually performing with Pearl Lang Dance Theater.[21][18][22] Madonna said of her move to New York, "It was the first time I'd ever taken a plane, the first time I'd ever gotten a taxi cab. I came here with $35 in my pocket. It was the bravest thing I'd ever done."[23] She started to work as a backup dancer for other established artists. One night, while returning from a rehearsal, a pair of men held her at knifepoint and forced her to perform fellatio. She later found the incident to be "a taste of my weakness, it showed me that I still could not save myself in spite of all the strong-girl show. I could never forget it."[24]

Now my question is, in my revising, should I go about removing all of these quotes and moving the pages to draft mode because of the substantial quotes that are in place?

Or Judy Garland, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Garland.

I think that I ought to tell the folks that it was I who named Judy Garland, Judy Garland. Not that it would have made any difference – you couldn't have hid[den] that great talent if you'd called her "Tel Aviv Windsor Shell", you know, but her name when I first met her was Frances Gumm and it wasn't the kind of a name that so sensitive a great actress like that should have; ... and so we called her Judy Garland, and I think she's a combination of Helen Hayes and Al Jolson, and maybe Jenny Lind and Sarah Bernhardt.[17]

If this is a rule, I will apply it across the board in my edits and my writing.

Aquariusveritas (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read your article on how you work listed on your Talk page.

"On a page totally new to me, I'll ask before I edit to any radical extent--if nobody responds, then I will go ahead. I generally wait a week. If the editors there do not like what I do, I sometimes go elsewhere. WP:OWN is a good policy, but hard to enforce. WP:BRD when used for major changes seems mainly designed to increase the work at the Arbitration Committee."

You did not employ this rule with me, rather you made an unfounded accusation. I would like an apology. I would also like for you to now go to arbitration any time you feel that there is something inappropriate about my work. I do not feel that you have behaved properly with me. Moving forward I think we could both benefit from an outside eye monitoring any future interactions we might have.

Aquariusveritas (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aquariusveritas,I see that you (and others) worked on itthe article further, and I see MJL quite reasonably accepted it. The present article Stephanie Dabney shows notability clearly enough, and is otherwise OK. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC you declined moved to mainspace[edit]

Hi DGG, in case you see this before anyone else notes my speedy, you declined an AfC on Dorado Design Automation a few days ago, and it looks like the author just moved it to mainspace without addressing much of anything. I dug around, no significant coverage or anything to show it warrants a page. Wanted to ping you in case you felt it was worth moving back to draft/AfC and letting them try again. Thanks! JamesG5 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC) now deleted by another Admin. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important A.Celli Draft Deleted[edit]

Hello, I am the author of the Draft: A.Celli and I was wondering whether you could be more specific on why you deleted my page. In other words, I need you to tell me which parts of my article are wrong because I don't seem to understand that. As soon as I will know exactly what my mistakes are, I will be more than happy to find a way to fix them! Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperdudes2019 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I am one of 4 different administrators and other reviewers who have declined this article. There just aren't sources for notability that meet WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(answering here since a message was left on my talk page regarding the same topic) - The link provided at WP:NCORP is the best place to find your answer, especially at WP:ORGCRIT. I also did an independent search and was unable to find sources that could establish notability. As such, there really isn't anything that can be fixed. You will need to wait until the topic becomes notable before creating a page on it. As far as your comment, my question would be why is this "an important matter?" Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE and when the topic becomes notable, there will be plenty of room for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meliton draft[edit]

Dear DGG,

Thanks again for your support. The article on Meliton has again been declined. Is there anything that can be done?

Best Wishes Clive sweeting (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)25 July 2019 Clive sweeting[reply]

Hi DGG (and Clive sweeting). I've copyedited Draft:Meliton, Metropolitan of Chalcedon and added numerous references. This is a very notable Greek Orthodox cleric. I tried to move it into article space using the AFC tool, but the page is protected and needs an admin to do it. Can you help? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful thanks to both of you for enabling and improving this page 25 July 2019Clive sweeting (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Clive sweeting[reply]

Draft:Abner Official[edit]

DGG on the Abner Official draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abner_Official), I included more references. Could you please review it. Blessings --Diegocapadi (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Diegocapadi, Idid some additional cleanup, but, since this is not really my subject field, I'll leave it for another reviewer. It would help to have some information of whether any of his songs charted. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:44:56, 26 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by LowlanderToo[edit]


Thanks for your further advice about the biography. I couldn't find any suitable reference about the Chartered Statistician so deleted that. I hunted through the University of Aberdeen Library to find the PhD thesis, so have linked that. I'm not sure whether I'm likely to find something useful stating that Buckland attended a couple of other Universities as an undergrad: would it be better to delete those? Presumably you don't think I need to find some proof that he was born in Dorset, so I guess I leave that as it is (and I have noticed that other WP pages about notable folk don't seem to link to such details unless someone has written somewhere linkable including this sort of stuff). Are there any other things on the page that you think I need to work on. This seems to be taking up lots of your time and mine so it'd be nice to draw it to a close.

I see that you worked with Alan Wilson. I never met him but read a biography. He sounds like an interesting man. He was born near where I live.

LowlanderToo (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC) It's ok now and has been accepted. --you can always add more later if you find references. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artadia removal[edit]

I've edited the Artadia page as to not rely on assertions from that organization themselves, though I think some are relatively self-evident. I've also added dates and additional citations from art and general press, as well as reputable university, museum, foundation, and gallery webpages.

It seems reasonable to create this page. Many comparable and relevant grants and grant-giving organizations in the U.S. in art and scholarship have similar information. This is information commonly reported on artists by their galleries, museums, and news outlets and used by journalists, critics, curators and scholars discussing artists in the media, for shows and publications, etc. I say this as an art journalist myself.

Also, as many artists on Wikipedia list grants, fellowships, etc., it would follow that similar pages are encyclopedic, at least to those who would likely be researching artists, prizes, or trying to trace funding in the art world and which artists are associated through funds, etc. Knowing where money comes from and goes in art has important ramifications for art and beyond (everything from the NEA controversy/ies, recent resignation of Kanders from Whitney board).

Rome Prize, Guggenheim Fellowship, Creative Capital, and many other grant-giving organizations in the arts have pages with listed recipients as this is generally relevant info, at least within the interested communities.

I will take a look at the new version in a few days. But first: the Guggenheim articles links to lists here containing al lthe awardees, becausethe consensus here is that having received such an award is a reliable indication of notability, so the red links indicate articles that ought to be made. I see no such consensus for this prize; the first step you need to take is to remove those who do not have WP articles. The place for that is on their website.
Please see WP:EINSTEIN; when this organization is anywhere near as prominent as the Rome Prize or Guggenheim Foundation there will be no problem about an article (the third article you have mentioned is not a good example to follow--we have tens of thousands of articles here from earlier years when standards were lower that need major revision or removal. The least we can do is to not add to them. ) DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you recommandation in draft: pepper[edit]

After seing your recommandation, I modified the draft and added your recommandation to the related article. Feel free to check and to tell me what you think of it. DragonComander (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with writing a new article / AwardWallet[edit]

Hi DGG, I understand you denied my AwardWallet article becuase it looks like marketing / promotion of the service and yes I am biased (which i disclosed). I am very new to wikipedia editing, so I am learning as I go. I understand that now I need to have someone else write the article for me, so I asked for help here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences was that the right way to do it? Is there a better way to get it done? Appreciate any help you can give me.

Alexiveresch, The really best way is to wait until you are well-known enough that some volunteer will decide on their own to write an article, but this is unpredictable; using the article request service is also a good way, but whether and when there will be a response is also unpredictable. As you realize, the likelihood of a satisfactory article from a paid writer is even lower. I took a look at some of the references to be able to advise you if the company is likely to be considered notable by the relevant guideline, WP:NCORP, and it seems borderline, because most of the references just include you in an article along with other similar services.
The best advice I can give you about what to do here is to write about other things that interest you personally. `-- DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dyar Al-Ashtari[edit]

This looks plenty sourced in my opinion which is why I left the talk page comment. Would recommend going to AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, I did just that: Wkipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyar Al-Ashtari. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had, after checking with Project Norway about the references. That's why I came here as it was strange to me that it was moved to draft instead of recommending for deletion. Made me feel like there was an issue with my reviewing as opposed to disagreeing with the notability of a topic. No big deal though. We can just leave it for another reviewer. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard actually. I see it is now at AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bility of a topic. No big deal though. We can just leave it for another reviewer. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your original suggestion is better. The criterion for reviewing is that an article is very likely to pass afd. Reviewers can only guess at that. When there is a disagreement, and the disagreement as here is about such matters of interpretation as the reliability in this context of potentially good sources, the best and definitive way is to go to AfD, and let the community decide.
Since you asked, I looked at some of your reviewing, and I think it's excellent, much more consistent than most people who do as much as you do, tho I suggest you might want to emphasise promotionalism a little more as a second reason for a decline, to try to discourage repeated submission of unacceptable material--and to decrease argument from the promotional editors. . (and I sometimes add notability to inline sources needed for a blp where it looks like the sources won't be enough even if properly used--again, an attempt to discourage fruitless resubmissions--multiple resubmissions are one of the causes of the difficulty of keeping up at afc. ). DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I think I am actually going to start using the "reject" instead of "decline" more often as sometimes you can lead a horse to water but they don't get the fact that article is just too promotional or simply doesn't (and likely never will) meet notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Media Group[edit]

You have fully protected Linus Media Group for being repeatedly recreated. Could you redirect it to Linus Sebastian#Linus Media Group, before fully protecting it again? Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 09:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Uhalley[edit]

Another editor reverted my de-prodding. Perhaps you could send this to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

might actually be notable. Borderline. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:28:35, 30 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Pangurban22[edit]


Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read the draft Demco article and commenting on it. I respectfully disagree with you regarding sources since the draft did include materials from library databases, including NexisUni, and at least one book from the law collection. I can certainly change some of the other citations in the article (for example, mergers with other companies) so that they come from library databases, but the information would be the same and the only difference would be the fact that other users won't have the free access to the sources as they do with my use of open websites. I did spend quite a bit of time researching this topic, but I'm impartial as far as the decision whether or not to publish it. However, I don't see any compelling reason that I need to spend more time on it. My preference would be to publish it and allow others to contribute and make it a better article.

I'm not sure if I get notified when you answer this post, but if you think I don't receive a notification, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to post it on my talk page or somewhere so I see your response.

Warm regards, Pangurban22 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pangurban22 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The job of an AfC a reviewer is to help the contributors make articles that will pass AfD. It is not the judgment on the merits of the article, nor is it on whether the article ought to be accdpted, but on whether it likely will be. We base this on our experience at AfD , and our knowledge of the guidelines used there in practice. We need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements This normally includes important and reliable newspapers and magazines. The financial data is a pure matter of fact, and any good source is fine, including Lexis ( and I think that is also what the book is used to show) The book is used just to show the valuation of the company. But financial data does not show notability-the rule at WP:CORP is that the references have to be more than about acquisitions and executive changes and finances. What you need is a fee more references like American Libraries; I know of references to Demco as a supplier in various textbooks, but I'm not sure that will be considered substantial coverage. There should be some also in the publications on library conservation, and that might do very well. .
Whether the readers have free access to the sources is indeed a problem. Our working rule is to usethe best sources, and if posisble to also include some that are in fact easily and freely accessible. Did you check Library Literature? Did you consult the relevant specialist at U Wisconsin libraries?
In any event, you need to rewrite the infromation at the bottom into an infobox--the easiest way is to use othe infoboxes from other bsiness articles as an example.
I wish you luck with this, because the goal of what I do here is to help articleslike this get into WP. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_150_Jul._2019&oldid=1140687396"