User talk:DGG/Archive 161 Jun 2020

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


Administrators' newsletter – June 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weeve[edit]

Just an FYI on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Weeve_(2nd_nomination) as you nominated it in 2013. No action needed. Stay safe my friend StarM 18:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A like-minded DS soul[edit]

Hi DGG (No worry if replies take a while, given your TP header!)

But I was just going to say how nice it was to see an arb with as much, if not more, dislike of DS as a system than me. Both generally, but (perhaps with more relevance to what might be changed in the foreseeable future) with particular dislike on how DS somehow defaults to retaining sanctions in the event of a no-consensus!

You ever make or see any steps to change that, let me know, and I'll be right on it.

Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:26:02, 4 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by DieRadfahrerin[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Thank you for your feedback and pointing me in the right direction regarding the draft article YouPic. I've added a new section "Criticism" detailing published complaints about the social network. DieRadfahrerin (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


DieRadfahrerin,start by removing all puffery, and al adjuectives of praise or excellence. Remove quotes by the subject, and material sourced only to press releases.. According to WP:NCORP, information about initial funding is considered insignificant. Information of inteest only to users or potential users in notencyclopedic content, and belongs on theri web page, not here. Avoid name dropping. Then resubmit. I'll let someone else review it. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Mohamed Esufally Article[edit]

Hello DGG,

Hope you are well. I have seen that you have rejected my article twice. I edited it down the second time as well.

Would you be able to tell me what exact changes I would need to make to get it approved?

Alternatively if you/another editor can edit the article for me so it can be approved that’ll be appreciated.

I’m new to Wikipedia and I’m not sure if this is how I get i contact with you but I hope to hear back.

Thank you. HandR12 (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


"HandR12. If he is notable in sports, then remove the minor material like his family and business life . Write in correct Englsih -- it's tea, not tee. Remove TM symbols, we do not use them. Provide a reliable source for each race in major sports publications of international reputation. Omit references which are just pr, or are interviews where he says what ever he wants,. be sure to fully declare any COI.

Them resubmit. I will leave it to the sports people to judge further. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial requested move of Jews[edit]

Hi DGG, hope all goes well. Please take a look at Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia#Requested move 5 June 2020. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my response, before seeing that it was in agreement with yours DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Georges Brausch[edit]

Hi DGG,

You recently reviewed the article I am trying to publish on Georges Brausch and suggested I add more referencing to it and write more about what he published. I have attempted to fulfil these aims now that I have updated the article. I was hoping perhaps you could have a look to see if it is suitable to be published at this point. I am new to Wikipedia as an editor so I apologise for any inconveniences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georges_Brausch

Best Luigi Muci (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Muci, I have accepted it, but the article be much stronger if you can find reviews of his books, and add them to the article as references. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG,

Perfect, thanks a lot. I will see to it that the article is improved with additional referencing as you've suggested.

Luigi Muci (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Schechtman Article[edit]

Hi, [[ping|DGG}}! I have the problem with getting permission for picture in my articles! I tried to explain to everyone that I was doing this work at the request of my wife, who is the heiress of the literary work of Eli Sсheсhtman. But still I can’t get the help I need.Wiki82esh (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki82esh: As you can see from the top of his talk page, DGG is perhaps unlikely to respond for a while.
I can see that you have uploaded a number of images of book covers and book pages uploaded on Wikimedia Commons and at least some of them are now deleted. It seems like this is a confusing situation for you.
First, book covers are copyrighted and it seems unlikely and unwise for your wife to release them as broadly as the licensing on Wikimedia Commons requires. Stop uploading copyrighted material to Wikimedia Commons.
There are instructions for using non-free images on Wikipedia itself through use of a fair-use declaration. The overall situation is covered at NFC, but, again, the rules for this use can be pretty confusing if you're doing it for the first time. Maybe we can find another editor who is good at dealing with non-free content who can work with you (I'm afraid I myself am not really qualified).
If I've understood your desire for help correctly, please respond - probably best to do it on your talk page - and I'll work on finding some more help. Alternatively, you can wait for DGG to return. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki82es: (and thanks, /jmcgnh, for the assistance. NYC is finally quieter, if not necessarily better.

You can use the pictures only in one of two conditions: 1.Under fair use, to illustrate an article on an individual book. One book cover, per article--not on the article about the author or anything else . In this case you can upload it to enWP, but not usually to commons. I see you have uploaded some of them to Commons. If they reject them, you can upload them again, but this time directly to the enWP. I know its complicated. Commons and the enWP have different rules. It would take many pages to fully explain the differences and the rationales. (personally, I do not think all the rules make sense, but that's irrelevant. We still have to follow them.) 2.If you personally own the copyright to the book cover, in which case you can upload itto Commons. If your wife owns the copyright to the cover, she can upload it to Commons. If the estate owns the copyright, whoever is the legal administrator fo rthe estate, can upload the cover to Commons. Please be aware that the copyright for the cover is not the same as the copyright for the text of the book. The author of a book does not usually own the copyright to the cover, which is usually paid for by the publisher, and the copyright will be the property of either the publisher or the artist, depending on their legal agreement. since many of the books were first published in the Soviet Union, the ownership of the cover is very likely to be unclear. The ownership of the cover of later editions and translations, published in France or Israel or the US, is likely to be clearer.

There is an alternative. If the estate owns the copyright to the text of the books, which is probably the case, and your wife is the administrator of the estate, she can upload the text or any part of it to Commons, including the title page, which is generally considered the text, or at any rate the first page of the text. This is usually the best workaround, when the actual ownership of the cover is unclear. I see you found another workaround: which is to use the first page of the manuscript of one of the books--this was a very good idea, and if you have trouble about that, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

apology and alert[edit]

I apologize for delayed responses, but the amount, nature, and underlying cause of police activity in my area of Brooklyn and elsewhere in the United Stateshas not been conducive to rational thought. Though things are quieter again, the unerlying inequities are just as stark', DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC) }} DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the chance of violence expanding to my historic district enclave that concerns me, but the inescapable awareness of the violence to others , Were I a few decades younger, I would have been there, just as I was 50 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be safe, DGG! DMacks (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peace to all of us! In America and Ukraine! Цифров (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, when I marched in January 2017 with my former boss her biggest dislike besides the immediate reason was that so many of these marches were still necessary. And it has only gotten worse since. Our turn to take the torch that all of you passed. StarM 00:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you will I hope fight, but that is quite another thing from suceeeding. And remember the real danger: climate change, which just like plague, can destroy us all alike, and is very close to being unpreventable. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Work schedule has kept me from being directly in the weeds on this one, but I"ve joined in my neighborhood went possible and just came from a Say Their Names vigil, which was beautiful. We live in a selfish city & society. Sadly I feel the only time people pay direct attention to climate change is during times like Sandy when Mother Nature tries to take back her land. But I support Climate Week & The Climate Museum's work, and do all I can. StarM 00:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Mercadante[edit]

Thank you deeply for approving this article. If there is any specific suggestion for improvement you would like to offer, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I will try to learn from the general pages about improving articles, though the language and format they use are quite complex for me. Totihan30 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Toti O'Brien[reply]

Totihan30. this needs to be completed by 1/ adding the bio information , since you have a references 1/add full publication info, according to WP: cite book, icluding the ISBN 3/list his major publications, 4/ fomd references to reviews of them. DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veeam[edit]

Hi DGG!

Long ago, you nominated Veeam for speedy deletion. You waited maybe two or three days, but no other admin deleted it. So you removed the speedy tag and tried to fix the article.

The article is problematic again now. I've nominated it for speedy deletion again; please feel free to delete it if you'd like.

I think that maybe the article may be a hopeless article about a non-notable company, and that deletion may be the best option. I suppose an okay second-best alternative might be indefinite semi-protection.

If you reply here, it would be good if you could please ping me by name.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettableid: Not just I but a number of other good editors have tried to rescue this article — possibly on the basis that we usually do have articles on manufacturing companies with a billion dollars of sales, and they have almost that. Additionally, there is an apparently-unchallenged article on their principal project, Veeam Backup & Replication. In the meantime, the company has been purchased by Insight Partners for $5 billion.[1] I don't think A7 is now valid, and the article is not entirely promotional as written, though promotionalism is its purpose, thus not a valid G11. I've removed the tag. It cannot be removed as the work of an undisclosed paid editor, because the original editor has declared his connection in his [user page]. Semi-protection would not help, nor would pending-changes protection, because the editor is autoconfirmed. It would, however, be deleted at AfD unless improved, because it's basically a list of products.
The article on their software is, however, promotional — it goes into details that would be appropriate in an advertisement. It would be valid either as G11 or merge. A merge would have to be done by VM, because it would probably be opposed. There is an alternative, of nominating it for AfD, and suggesting a merge or redirect as a solution. That's not what AfD was originally supposed to be used for, but nowadays we do such things as a broad interpretation of 'alternatives to deletion'.
We have no good solution for dealing with problems like these, except by watching and reverting changes. Either I could speedy G11, and see if it gets deleted, which it might. Alternatively, I suggest an AfD of the two articles. I think it would be possible to make it clear at the AfD that a modest combined article would be acceptable; and then it would have to be watched. I could warn the editor that he is sufficiently COI that he would need to ask for changes. And then semi-protection would work against evasion by IPs; or he and they could be blocked for promotional sockpuppetry. Or, after the AfD, both articles might be deleted. I could justify arguing either way. (This is the sort of situation which inclines me to suggest banning all paid editing, declared or undeclared, but I do not think the policy change would be accepted.)
I'm sorry this is so complicated. If I wrote the rules....
DGG ( talk ) 14:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate hearing your thoughts!
Maybe an acceptable compromise rule would be this: Initially, paid editors can do paid edits, as usual. But, if they violate WP:COI, anyone can issue a warning; or, an admin can bar them from paid editing, temporarily or indefinitely. While they're barred, they can do unpaid edits, like to our Happiness and World peace articles. But, if they violate their bar, they may be completely blocked from editing.
—Unforgettableid (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Mercadante again[edit]

Thank you for your suggestions, DGG

I don't understand the one referring to the bio, as the article is almost uniquely a short bio. BUT I DO REALIZE I haven't been unable to format the reference in Wikipedia style, and I will figure out how to reproduce that style. I have the ISBN # for all books and I will add them, though I have verified that Wikipedia's bibliographies don't usually list ISBN. I have already listed the 3 major publications, but at this point I will indeed list them all.

I have tried to upload a simple headshot picture, which doesn't have any copyright issue, of course, and it was blocked many times. I saw that you confirmed I had disclosed my family relationship with the subject of the article up front. I will keep disclosing it, but it seems that I will be routinely denied uploading or editing nevertheless. I imagine this is a cautionary practice that can't be avoided? I suppose the only option I have is to keep uploading? Thank you again. Totihan30 (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whataboutery in India[edit]

So if its not covered add it, we do not need a separate article on half a dozen claims.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that is a decision for AfD. Or propose a merge. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
another editor seems to have replaed the speedy tag--I have again removed it. Once the tag is removed, it cannot be replaced, and the only way forward is afd. Please let me know if one is started. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why it is decision for AFD but here you go Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whataboutery in India.Slatersteven (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I commented. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:20:54, 11 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Frbrown[edit]


Thank you for taking the time to review Draft: George Perlegos. I have updated the page as you suggested in the reviewer comments. I have adjusted the tone and made sure references to him are "he" or "Perlegos".

Frbrown (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FrBrown,you started; I did some more. Now make sure that every claim to a discovery is refenced to some 3rd party source, not just to his recollections.And clarify what is his invention, from what he improved, or popularized. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Toussaint[edit]

Hey DGG, quick question regarding this speedy deletion. Was deleting under G11 intentional? G11 says "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopaedia articles ..." (italics in original), and I'm curious what you saw in that page that fits that criteria. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17., The tone throughout was so thoroughly that of a press release that I thought it unfixable without complete rewriting from scratch. , e.g. "While doing his work, he paid close attention to how the instructors taught their classes despite never having been on a spin bike before. He said: "I was mopping with purpose. When I was cleaning outside of the room, I was listening to the instructors." or "was immediately taken by Toussaint's instructing style and deep voice" or the extensive name dropping or use of laudatory adjectives or the final paragraph . . But sports is not my field, and perhaps in this field this doesn't count as entirely promotional--and perhaps I should have followed my usual practice of avoiding the area. If you think you can fix it, undelete it. No objection even if you undelete it as is. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DGG, thanks for the reply! I think there's quite a bit there to salvage, as some of that "early life"-style material is necessary for establishing how the subject of the article got into the field that they're notable for. I'd be happy to work on it if you're open to being the one to undelete it. (I know the person who wrote the article, and so I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to take any admin actions related to it.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My own view is such how I rose from a lowly start contents is always pure PR and I always remove it, unless the person is actually famous. It has a place, as reader's interest material in a magazine, but not in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might disagree on where the line is; for example, would you consider the history section for Blackrocks Brewery to be pure PR? To me, biographical articles aren't that different. In any case, I've committed to working on it and we seem to agree that it wasn't unambiguous advertising, as G11 requires, so could I ask you to undelete it as per my last message? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no I consider it acceptable, for it is a factual statement that could be proven, whereas the sentimental tale in toussaint account depends entirely on what the individual chooses to say, for there is no evidence other than his own. I'll add some other examples. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point on the quotes, and those can be addressed if you'd restore it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you could have restored it yourself but for the coi problem, I restored it. and I helped out by removing some of what i consider promotional junk. Of course, add back as you se fit. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:InGenius Prep[edit]

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:InGenius Prep, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK  14:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. it will go on my list for drafts to be challenged if they ever make it to articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC[edit]

June 17, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.

We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!

This month, we'll check in on the global WikiCup race and have as featured speaker our local champion and frontrunner, who is trying to win it by writing as many new New York City articles as possible, as well as other local and global topics.

Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.

7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

We especially encourage folks to add your 3-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Article Submission of "Draft:Tang's Living Group"[edit]

Dear DGG, Thank you so much for your review of my submission of article "Draft:Tang's Living Group". For your comment of being subjective of my article, I had added 22 independent sources of third parties for its outlet listing. The factual content of my draft are all referenced from these articles. In addition, I have made several amendments to make sure that the content is strictly and directly referenced from the independent sources while referencing the practices of other Hong Kong hotels (e.g. Eaton Hotel Hong Kong). Many of them normally have only a few sources (i.e. less than 5). In this connection, could you please advise the amendments to be made for approving my draft? Many thanks! Endlesssams (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pure catalog listing of your properties.that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but your own website. the references are eiter advertisements/press rleases, or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uunartoq Disc Redux[edit]

New and additional citations and content have been added. Praenomen3 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes , Praenomen3, it's definitely better. But I wold still like to know of a full academic source in English. The Disc seems important enough that there ought to be one; I'll take a look myself also. You;ve got me interested. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR had four, two of which I think I already had, and Google Scholar had 28, likewise with some I had. I'll sort through them and see what's relevant. Praenomen3 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morning, DGG. I've gone through the JSTOR and Google Scholar returns on the subject; some were duplicates of each other, some only referred to the place rather than the disc and others I already had. Anything that was new and relevant, I've now incorporated as new citations. Also placed an illustration of the original disc up top, and included a link to a photo of the actual artifact in the "External Links" section. Better? Praenomen3 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

much better, Praenomen3. very good work. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Hicks[edit]

Hi again! Thank you for tagging the paid biography of Angie Hicks with some article maintenance tags.

I've now nominated it for speedy deletion.

All the best, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps it should simply be merged/redirected to angie's List;
It has also been suggested to move it and Home advisor to ANGI Homeservices, I think I would probably oppose such a drastic merge. these firms are socially important in the economy. . DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020[edit]

Hello DGG,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to WP:COI[edit]

Last month in the section on "paid editing" you changed "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" to "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; you are prohibited from making more than trivial updates directly" on the guideline page for conflicts of interest. [2] Banning paid editors from directly making non-trivial edits is a pretty big change (especially considering the weight of guidelines in general); I was wondering if there was any consensus I wasn't aware of to make it. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, It is certainly the practice, because that's the pe of the COI edit requests. I do not necessarily support it as a guideline--I am uncomfortable with the entire COI edit request procedure --I find i hopelessly clumsy, and do not use it or help with it. I was trying to adjust to what seems to be the actual rule. What we need is a discussion on how to handle such things (I have a firm opinion on what our policy ought to be on this and other aspects of paid editing, though it may not yet have consensus: paid editing should be banned from enWP, and then these problems would not arise.) If you think I did not state things right or do it right, please do revert and start a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. From what I've understood it hasn't been officially banned yet though and I believe the best venue for that would be an RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 07:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, if we;re going to go to the touble ogf RfC we migh want to see if there are other loopholes we can deal with at the same time, like a/ prohibitions on coi moves or de-merges, or expansion of redirects, or moves from user space,

b/making it explicit that all coi articles must be declared not just on the userpage, but on the arrticle talk p. and paid coi on the article pagw alao, and that paid coi tags never get removed from article pages ever; andthat coi editors may not make GA nominations, or iTN, or nominate competitors for deletion without specifying coi. etc. etc. But then we need a lightwieght procedure for minor updating., and there are so many work aorunds tht this is why I prefer banning paid editing altogether and totally, both after detection and retrospectively. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there's a lot of paid editors that we deem acceptable such as Wikimedians in Residence and all the professors in Wiki Ed (plus WMF employees). Banning all paid editors opens a litany of problems unless we can figure out a way to draw a clear line between what's OK and what's not; I don't believe it would be the best idea to give the WMF even more power to adjudicate if the guideline is unclear or expand COI/N to endlessly debate whether someone should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. I personally don't believe a ban is the best solution; we should be incentivizing better and more transparent practices on the parts of companies or individuals who may have legitimate concerns (celebrities with bad photos or obvious vandalism perhaps) but if there is an RfC that ends up with consensus to ban I'll try to help write something that covers those looholes. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i have rarely considered WIRs and faculty and wmf staff advising then to be paid editors. The are normally there to teach people how to write in the general field, and to assist them in using the facilities of the instutions to do so, this will usually make them COi editors to a certain degree but they are not editing specifically to promote the efforts of the foundation or of the universities. This like everything else can be perverted and there have been cases where editors in residence have devoted themselves to writing articles about the staff of the organization that is paying them. This is a mis-use of the position and people who have tried to do it in connection with the Bright Institute at Harvard and elsewhere have been stopped on the same basis that anyone else would be stopped in editing similarly. Do you of student edited we use of student editors to write articles about faculty in their own college is not desirable whether or not they are paid in money for it; it is too much like direct paid, promotional coverage. Those cases I know of here have been stopped and if there are others I would like to be informed. Rather it should be done by writing about people in the same field at other colleges. There have also been misuses of student editing in having them write articles expounding the partivulat theories of one particular professor or advisor-- this is direct promotional editing and is wrong whether paid or unpaid. Instances of this that I know about have been stopped and if there are others I would like to know about them.
The usual problem about college and faculty articles is normally that way have been written by the faculty member themself, their paid staff, or their his universities' PR staff. Much of what I do here a in continuing efforts to remove such articles DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of SmileTutor[edit]

Hi DGG,

I noticed that my page has been nominated for a speedy delete.

Will you be able to provide me with an archival of the page so that we can review all changes required?

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonehlwee (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was a pure advertisement; there is no point in making changes. It would need to be rewritten completely, using true references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements -- Interviews with the company founder where he says what he chooses are not independent sources. Material directed towards prospective users, rather than the general public, is advertising, not encyclopedic . Mentions in newspapers are not substantial coverage. Complaintsfrom consumers of employees are not substantial coverage. Every one of your references are therefore acceptable. If you want to proceed, show me two that are, any language. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi hope you are doing well, I got this draft Draft:Carolyn Aronson edited from User:Zanimum, please see if its now ok. Appreciate your help. SusanBlin (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three separate reviewer's have concluded that this is primarily an advertisement DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 16[edit]

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (May and June 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 16th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

If anyone else would like to contribute to future issues, please comment at Wikipedia talk:Scripts++. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, We discussed the revised version of Patricia Olynyk at the Teahouse under the title "Could an impartial editor..." Per that conversation, where you said "it's certainly better", could you please remove the banners on the article? In previous discussions on the article's talk page you said we needed to reach a consensus to remove the banners. If you do not remove them I would like to do so since it seems we reached a consensus in the Teahouse. Thank you. Ogmany (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_161_Jun_2020&oldid=1002327315"