User talk:DGG/Archive 162 Jul. 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


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]

Your draft article, [[]][edit]

Hello, DGG. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Pillow plate heat exchanger".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
  • The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 11:57:58, 9 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Tycheana[edit]


Hi, this is regarding my draft, submitted just 2 hours ago under AfC that got rejected citing the reason - the cases do not seem important enough to justify an article. If you go through the content and the independent references, all cases that I have mentioned have made headlines in all the noteworthy tabloids at the time and were high-profile in the country, which itself proves that they were well-known. Had they not been as well-known, would I have found as many independent references? One of the cases - Gopal Goyal Kanda - is also discussed on a Wikipedia page of the same name, although they have discussed the facts and not mentioned the lawyer, something that I intended to add using my references. I would like to discuss the matter further with you and request guidance on how the draft can be improved upon in order to be accepted.

What I would also like to bring to your notice is the fact that I created the draft based on the presumption that a lawyer's notability is is best proved through his cases, particularly those that have been widely discussed in noteworthy tabloids, all of which are also listed on Wikipedia, and have also found mention on related Wiki pages. Seeking guidance and help as to how to proceed regarding this, thanks in advance, regards, Tycheana (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tycheana (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Tycheana ,response forthcoming, but it can take a few days. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, thanks for responding, and till then what is your suggestion for me? I can vouch that my sources are independent because it is something that I have learned here on this platform. If you go through them you would realize that they are news reports in well-known and reputed tabloids and are not just mere Press releases on the subject. Also, none of them are lop-sided or even partial towards the subject in question, but discuss the issue in a neutral manner. The official website and his blog I have placed under external links and have not taken any content from them. The one interview that I have included is also just for proving his education which is in the intro and not in the Q&A.

Can I continue to make edits while waiting for you to respond? I would be truly grateful for some direction and guidance, as it would enable me to grow and progress as a Wikipedian. Thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Direction snd guidance you will get, but just what's the hurry? (here , and at the other places you've ben asking). The only people who are usually in such a great rush are paid editors trying get the article accepted so the client pays then. I, like the others reviewers and admins here are volunteers and work at our space and our own priorities. DGG ( talk ) 10:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

full reply tomorrow, I hope. I haven't forgotten. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Tycheana

First

I want to clear up a misconception that the reliability of a promotional interview depends of where it was published. All newspapers and general and hobbyist magazines I know of publish promotional interviews, and I think they always have done so. The NYT has publsihed them consistently in the various feature sections; the New Yorker has published them even as major stories. A promotional interview is an interview where the subject is permitted to say whatever they please. The reason they are not a RS for notability or indeed for anything at all beyond what the subject wants to give as their personal views, is because they are not independent--the publication simply asks leading questions, and publishes whatever the subject responds. They have exactly the same degree of independence from the subject as what the subject publishes on their blog. Not all interviews are promotional  : some are intended to be deliberately hostile, and some are , on rare occasions, intended to be analytic. The way to tell is to not just note what is the title of the source and its general reliability, but to read the actual item. There are fields where such interviews commonly are all the available content except for notes about funding and routine operations ,and if there isn othing better, it may be impossible to write a NPOV WP article, because there is no information independent of the subject. In additional to such promotional interviews, there is other promotional content: the style section of magazines is often almost entirely composed of such items, and the way to distinguish them is whether the publication seems to give any independent source for what it publishes.
Some publications give specific honest specifications about where the material is coming form. a key warning word, for example, is often "contributor", A key stylistic device to be taken as warning is a direct quote. And some publication title are honest: Anthing called Someplace business journal is a vehicle for PR, and almost always nothing more .
this does not mean that such content is worthless in the world. But they need to be read with full knowledge about where the information is coming from, and we must in general would not rely on anything said there for anything in a WP article, except the person or firm's declared intentions--which may of course sometimes not be their true intentions. There are situations where such material can actually be reliable about the facts of the subject, but they're special cases.
Officially, WP relies upon editorial control as a criterion. Editorial control of newspapers varies, and not a single one of them is perfect. No publication at all is a RS for everything. .There are no shortcuts: one must first read the actual reference, and then anaalyze it critically with a knowedgeof where the likely problems may be. We have in the past naively acted as if sourcing were a mechnical operation. It is not. Remember that the highest level of the PR profession is the ability to gets the client's preferredm material into what the reader is likely to think a high-quality publication. (adapted from User talk:DESiegel at [1] )

Now, about the article:

as a general rule, attorney are notable either from being lead attorneys on notable cases, or in having references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements written on them. If you want to base the argument on his cases, try writing articles on them, but I don't think they'll be found notable. As for the refs, most are in the contextof the cases only. Ref 1 is straight pr, .You are right that many of the other articles are not pr , but they are about the particular case, not thie individual.
Im sorry, but I do not see the basis for an acceptable article. But I do not have the last word, and iif some other reviewer accepts it, I will decide whether to challenge it at AfD. The community gets to decide. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see ....[edit]

User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Dear DGG I was looking to start a page on the impute.me project, because I think it is a nice open source project and also they just published a scientific paper about it. Then I saw there already was a deleted draft, that you reviewed. I added in 3 references from scientific literature that are more specific as you requested (=they actually talk about the project). I hope you would have time to look at it again. I hope I did it right with the references. I'm no wikipedia expert. Best regards Yinwang888 (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two topics: Polygenic risk statiification, as a method of human genetic anlysis andcounseling, and the company. These need to be separate articles. The argument for the value of the method goes in the general article, not theone on the company. Btw, ref 15 does not say what your sentence referenced to it does. ---that would be an extraordinary claim that would require multiple indpendent MEDRS quality sources. The paper knows not a claim anything so broad. Pleasde reread WP:MEDRS. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please help with my rejected page - Draft:Hopster[edit]

Dear DGG, I have attempted to create a page - Draft:Hopster - for Hopster, the preschool entertainment platform, however, it got rejected by you. I have requested help in order to be able to publish it and was advised to contact you directly. When creating the page, I believe I've met the guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability). However, if there's anything specific I'd need to change/add, please let me know so I can make these changes. The company is recognized in the children's media industry, hence the industry-recognized article citations, and it has been nominated for the Children's BAFTA in 2018 and 2019 so I believe the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. It is also referenced on a number of different Wikipedia pages. Could you please give me some pointers regarding what I would need to change or add for the page to be approved? Thank you in advance for your assistance, Agneslesti1 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agneslesti1, when it actually receives the Bafta, it will probably become notable. DGG ( talk ) 11:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, thanks for your reply. It has received the Kidscreen Awards, the US equivalent of the Children's Bafta, 3 years in a row in 2020, 2019 and 2018. It is also listed on the Wikipedia list of Children%27s_interest_channel. What is the benchmark for being deemed notable, please?

Agneslesti1 (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there is no formal benchmark as far as passing AfC is concerned, AfC is just a preliminary screen--The rule is that we pass anything which has a reasonable chance of being found notable in a discussion at WP:AFD, where the community decides. Such community decisions are the only authority here. What I do at AfC is to guess at what they will be based upon many years of experiences arguing at AfD. It would depend upon whether the community is likely to recognize the Kindscreen as sufficient. Have they done so before? DGG ( talk ) 12:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calunium?[edit]

Hello, I see you recently accepted an article Calunium under the Articles for Creation process. Could you please have a look at this again? The subject may be worthy of an article under the name "Wery Wall", by which it is widely known, but I suspect that "Calunium" is a recently made-up name. I can't find any evidence for its use other than on a couple of blogs and unreliable wiki-type sites written by users. Indeed this new article itself tells us that the name of the fort is unknown. Most of this new article seems to have been copied word-for-word from the articles Lancaster, Lancashire and Lancaster Castle, without properly copying the references, and I'm not convinced that it contributes anything that isn't already better covered in those articles. Helmshore (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check. I admit I'm not an expert here. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Helmshore, You seem to be right. Perhaps the best thing to do now is a merge. I've marked it for merging to Lancaster, Lancashire. You can just go ahead and do it as you see fit, as I doubt there will be objections. (You will probably do it more accurately than I.) DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm no expert in the field, but I'll see what I can do. I should probably wait a few days first to see if anyone raises an objection and/or suggests a different approach. --Helmshore (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help with my Draft Page Keith Clarke[edit]

Dear David, Many thanks for your help with the page that I am creating for Prof. Keith Clarke and for the positive view of the world and of Wikipedia that you described in your user page. I relate very much to what you say and I will start to be a regular reader of your user page.

I made the changes you recommended and just realized that a kind person moved them to the correct location. I am learning a lot and hope not to repeat the same mistake. Are you happy with what I included? do you think I could improve it a bit more? All suggestions are very welcomed and appreciated.

I would like to ask you another favour, if I can take a bit more of your time helping me with the following page: I am building a second page simultaneously for Professor Zenia Kotval. Everything in her CV and trajectory tells me that she should have a Wikipedia article: a Fellow of a very prestigious Association, a Professor in a multidisciplinary area that needs to have more people and is important in the reduction of social inequality and increase participation; one of 9 members of a prestigious groups that produces the accreditation of Planning Programmes across all the USA; a part of an under-represented group, a Woman, etc, etc To be frank I would expect that these two pages would be a quick pass in the Wikipedia filters.

With all best regards, Elisabete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabete A Silva (talk • contribs) 13:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

""response forthcoming in   a day or two.  DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only really relevant factor here as far as an editor isw concerned is the importance of her scientific work, as shown by WP:PROF. It's reasonable to work on areas that need more representation, but the critical thing is to make sure the people are at the level of accomplishment that would justify an article,
What tiy write fir Keith C Clarke is fine. The main thing it now needs is links to articles on other notable people with WP articles that he has worked with-- and you should give the name of his advisor even if we do not yet have an article on him, because weprobably should. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:17:04, 20 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by AmanAdhav[edit]

A month ago, I made edits to my Wikipedia page and am currently requesting a review. I tried to keep the tone as neutral as possible in biographical terms and was hoping to receive some feedback as I am unsure about my latest updates. AmanAdhav (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AmanAdhav, it has some major remaining problems:
1. Don't give a timeline as well as a narrative. Integrate the two.
2. Dont give personal details of no encyclopedic value and littlle interest ot he general reader
3. Try to decrease the expressions indicative of the justice of his politicla views and the merits of his activities. If you give them at all for background give them once.
Then let me know. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 22:41:22, 20 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Glenn Stanley[edit]

Thanks for reviewing my submission. I will complete further research and use the Wikipedia guides to edit and improve the submission -- regards Glenn

Glenn Stanley (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest comment on Draft: Alex Omokudu[edit]

Dear DGG, Thanks for your latest comment on AfC Alex Omokudu. I have re-touched the article a little bit to improve its neutral tone as you have suggested. But I would appreciate if you can shade more light on what you meant by a single congregation in your sentence that reads: I don't think that, as a single congregation, it would be likely to pass our standards. Thanks.Ozonyiawiki (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Ozonyiawiki, I wrote a further explanation at the draft. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm QuiteUnusual. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Dana Bentley-Cranch, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Buck's Store Museum Draft[edit]

Dear DBB,

You noted on my draft on Buck's Store Museum that "additional citations are needed to show wider notice." I'm thinking of locating more press articles on the store, citing a book that explicitly devotes a section to the store, citing an obituary of its owner, and potentially adding an image of the store once I understand the image rights involved. Of course I understand you cannot prematurely approve an article, but do you think such steps might be sufficient to help move the article to a publishable state? Thank you for your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantwong22 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grantwong22, it depends on the details --the question is whether there was general interest so it depends on where the book was published and similar factors so add them and let me know and I'll take a look. But a local obituary is worthless as a reliable source and a picture of the store if it is free from copyright would be appropriate if there's an article , but it doesn't add to the notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected[edit]

DGG, we discussed earlier about looking at Draft:Renowned_LA. You said you'd get to it a couple months ago so just wanted to follow up. The list of sources continues to rise - here's a link to another dozen plus sources to help with your review. Pilot333 (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC) the only relevant part in thearticle itself is " covered by major fashion publications such as Complex,[7] The Source,[8] and XXL.", but they are both limited to pictures of their clothing and quotes from the designer. Most of the new ones seem to be mentions in a list of items. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please see ....[edit]

User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Dear DGG I was looking to start a page on the impute.me project, because I think it is a nice open source project and also they just published a scientific paper about it. Then I saw there already was a deleted draft, that you reviewed. I added in 3 references from scientific literature that are more specific as you requested (=they actually talk about the project). I hope you would have time to look at it again. I hope I did it right with the references. I'm no wikipedia expert. Best regards Yinwang888 (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two topics: Polygenic risk statiification, as a method of human genetic anlysis andcounseling, and the company. These need to be separate articles. The argument for the value of the method goes in the general article, not theone on the company. Btw, ref 15 does not say what your sentence referenced to it does. ---that would be an extraordinary claim that would require multiple indpendent MEDRS quality sources. The paper knows not a claim anything so broad. Pleasde reread WP:MEDRS. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 00:17:04, 20 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by AmanAdhav[edit]

A month ago, I made edits to my Wikipedia page and am currently requesting a review. I tried to keep the tone as neutral as possible in biographical terms and was hoping to receive some feedback as I am unsure about my latest updates. AmanAdhav (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AmanAdhav, it has some major remaining problems:
1. Don't give a timeline as well as a narrative. Integrate the two.
2. Dont give personal details of no encyclopedic value and littlle interest ot he general reader
3. Try to decrease the expressions indicative of the justice of his politicla views and the merits of his activities. If you give them at all for background give them once.
Then let me know. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm QuiteUnusual. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Dana Bentley-Cranch, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Buck's Store Museum Draft[edit]

Dear DBB,

You noted on my draft on Buck's Store Museum that "additional citations are needed to show wider notice." I'm thinking of locating more press articles on the store, citing a book that explicitly devotes a section to the store, citing an obituary of its owner, and potentially adding an image of the store once I understand the image rights involved. Of course I understand you cannot prematurely approve an article, but do you think such steps might be sufficient to help move the article to a publishable state? Thank you for your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantwong22 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grantwong22, it depends on the details --the question is whether there was general interest so it depends on where the book was published and similar factors so add them and let me know and I'll take a look. But a local obituary is worthless as a reliable source and a picture of the store if it is free from copyright would be appropriate if there's an article , but it doesn't add to the notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBB, I have since added more sources and have resubmitted the article for consideration. Please let me know what you think! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantwong22 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grantwong22 , they all seem to be from the immediate area. Opinions vary about WP becoming a hyper-local history encyclopedia . (though I, like most of us, am very willing for it to cover my own immediate geography in exceptional detail), I, and most of us, generally make an exception for early or pioneer history--but Virginia in the late 19th century wasn't really in that stage). Since afds in this area are unpredictable, and the rule for passing afc is to have a reasonable chance at afd, I'll accept. If anyone lists it for deletion, the community decides. It shouldn't be up to the possibly aberrant views of a single reviewer. But if you can somethign outside Virginia, please do add it. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected[edit]

DGG, we discussed earlier about looking at Draft:Renowned_LA. You said you'd get to it a couple months ago so just wanted to follow up. The list of sources continues to rise - here's a link to another dozen plus sources to help with your review. Pilot333 (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC) the only relevant part in thearticle itself is " covered by major fashion publications such as Complex,[7] The Source,[8] and XXL.", but they are both limited to pictures of their clothing and quotes from the designer. Most of the new ones seem to be mentions in a list of items. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WP:PROF[edit]

Hello DGG,

I would like to invite you to take part in a discussion that I have started (If the topic interests you). Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Quantifiable_metric_for_WP:NACADEMIC Earthianyogi (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there & I will have some more to say tomorrow. There are many more things to be taking account of than I think you may realize; sometimes individual decisions among people who have a common interest are the best way. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re: alternatives to deletion[edit]

Redirects are fine, and I am generally very fond of WP:SOFTDELETE, but there is the problem of people restoring redirects back into the article without any notification. And while I can log speedies, prods and even drafts with Twinkle, I have yet to figure out an easy way to keep a list of redirects, so that I can check in a year or so if it hasn't been 'sneakily' restored with no rationale... There are editors who will randomly deprod stuff with no rationale, but because of the logs, I can at least check this and AfD the article. But a redirect is sneaky both ways: it's a hidden deletion that doesn't generate notifications for others, and when challenged, it often becomes a sneaky restoration. I think how to make redirects more accountable, both ways, is something to discuss. I'll ping User:Aymatth2 who may find this topic interesting enough to start a wider community discussion, just like he recently did for PRODs? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pietrus, I as well as you have dealing with this for years-- keeping track let nobody messes up some good work is one of the real problems at Wikipedia, and trying to keep a list of everything we do is impractical for anyone who works as much as we do . It is equally impractical to try to keep a list of everything that has been deleted and ought to be restored or rewritten by somebody better able. We have had good number of tools added to keep track of things in the last few years and maybe we can get something some here also. Considering all of the resources that the foundation puts into administrative function, could be enough to do something that will benefit the actual encyclopedia-- which is the reason the foundation is here in the first place; as you say volunteers do seem more likely to do the work that is actually needed. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I often move articles, e.g. E.g. Roan Antelope copper mine, moved a few seconds after it was created. A full article turned into a redirect. Turning a redirect into a full article is also quite normal. I often create a redirect to an article section, then decide the topic really deserves a full article in its own right. I may be wrong, but do not think many articles are converted into redirects as a sort of quiet deletion, with significant coverage of a notable subject lost, and do not think many redirects are expanded into articles as a nefarious way of creating articles on topics that do not deserve them. I suppose it would be easy enough to have a bot maintain reports on articles turned into redirects (other than via moves) and redirects turned into articles. Not sure that anyone would monitor them. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in earlier years, it was certainly used as a quiet deletion method by a few particular editors, but I haven't seen anyone doing for at least the last year or two. However, expanding a redirect to an article to avoid scrutiny is something I have seen, usually with articles on businesses where the article is written first, with a redirect from the exec later turned into an article. This sometimes succeeds, because creating articles on both at once from a new editor is very likely to attract notice at NPP. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. There are so many topics with masses of solid sources, clearly notable but with no Wikipedia article, or just a tiny stub. And there are so many ways to publicize a company, product or person without using Wikipedia ... Aymatth2 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Essam al-Emad[edit]

Welcome, how can I republish the article; I added additional sources to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrahlawymasry (talk • contribs) 09:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the draft. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs and Alcohol Today[edit]

An editor with less than 400 edits created this uncited article on a journal. Also created Drug Science, Policy and Law. Can you or someone watching figure out what to do with it? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug Science, Policy and Law. the other journal is indexed in Scopus, so it might be qualified for an article. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieving content[edit]

Hello, please give me access to the content you just deleted from my account. Melissartieda (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

surely you have access to your own advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Demchok sector on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand[edit]

“you asked for access, but its a pure advertisement, as decided by the concurrence of two separate administrators. Declaring a COI as you have done does not give you permission to write promotional material. You asked for access, but surely you have access to your own advertisements, DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)”

It was not meant as advertising, I’m sorry you see it that way. If Wikipedia doesn’t accept it, I understand. But I am the author and I would like to have what I wrote. Please send it to me. Melissartieda (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Melissartieda (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

are you saying that "Its services and products aim to fulfill the dream of capturing the true essence of couples in America and all over the world." and similar text was not meant as advertising?
But I am going to let you see it again. I will restore it to a temporary page in your user space for a period of two days and then I will be deleted - it is at User:Melissartieda/Meli & Chris Atlanta Wedding Photography (temp)

Adding a page on Dr. Minis Shaji Thomas. reg[edit]

Dear Sir,

I had a very brief exposure to adding/editing wiki articles during my Ph.D. days at IISc Bangalore. This was somewhere in 2014 when a set of people actively writing wiki articles visited us and organized an edit-a-thon related to 'Indian women scientists'. At that time, I created pages for Dr. Indrani Bose and Dr. Aruna Dhathathreya. However, could not keep up with that due to a hectic lab schedule. But now I would like to resume this activity.

I completed a Ph.D. in Physics in 2018 from IISc Bangalore. I am interested in adding content on Indian Women Scientists, Indian Women Engineers, Indian Women Educationists, Indian Women Administrators. Can you guide me on how can I contribute to wiki contents? Can I come up with a list of potential people to be added? I would like to start with Prof. Mini Shaji Thomas. Kindly advice.

Thank you.

OK: First of all, edit under the same user name as you did before. If you no when you have the password you can request another one since your email is activated. If you don't want to do that link from your new user page to your old one Then pick the most prominent people possible who will be considered notable under our rules for WP: PROF. One way to do that is to look for people who hold an honorary named professorship because they are always considered notable. Also anyone who has ever been head of the University which in India is probably usually named vice chancellor is also considered notable., but When you write the article , write it as objectively as possible not like a profile on a university website . Give the place of birth and the education and positions held with dates do not discuss family or hobbies, find the three or four most cited papers & list them in full bibliographic format giving the citation numbers from Google scholar. Before you do this go back to the articles you already wrote and add in the necessary information and remove excessive personal material. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for Mini Shaji Thomas, she is probably qualified as director of NIT Tiruchirappalli, but a Google scholar citation figures are very low--she seems to have been primarily an administrator. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Nathan2055. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Thomas Mohnike, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving newly created pages from main space to draft space without enough reasons[edit]

Respected Sir, citing your edit about my page Mahamba (creature), the user Eostrix is moving my newly created pages from mainspace to draftspace without citing enough valid reasons while those actions also seem not to comply WP:DRAFTIFY. Please help me, by allowing to contribute positively here.Thanks and regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AranyaPathak, you are editing in a difficult areas, where many sources are unreliable. So you must make sure that every statement is referenced to a particular page on a particular book, preferably to something available on the internet. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Respected sir, unfortunately, this is precisely the problem; due to which earlier I requested for a discussion with you; I am not at all working in the troubled area of a pseudoscience named cryptozoology; my area of interest for contribution is in 'secure' domain of cultural anthropology, cultural history and cultural studies; being a new user I tried to enrich the existing entries irrespective of their category wise placement; I had to face extremely prejudicial and hostile behaviour; and strangely I found myself unjustly labelled as the "proponent of cryptozoology"; and then on what I am experiencing is plain and simple shunning and ostracism, instead of dialogue, discussion, debate or constructive criticism; now, it has been observed that there is a lamentable tendency to conflate the regular usage of the terms - myth, legend and lore with its formal, qualified, technical usage; in order to avoid category error I have avoided the terms; in order to avoid ambiguity I have used more adequate, appropriate term 'creature of belief' instead of ' fictional creature' as there is no scholarly consensus about the source of the lack of veridicality of the concerned entities to be imagination or error; sadly, the engagement of others so far is overwhelmingly destructive and negating instead of being productive/contributive; further, it shows an unmistakable bias towards and agenda in favour of the category folklore; it is shameful to observe the how unscrupulous and frivolous one can become towards a reputed academic discipline folklore studies; where apparently any/ every entity with doubtful/ contested existence can be conveniently placed within the ambit of folklore. Also, my guarded usage of the phrase - 'creature of belief' is evidently making it amply clear about the non existent nature of the concerned creatures.

Finally, many thanks for your comment, advice and instructions. The work is in progress, and definitly will be much developed further.

Kindly, aid me in my honest and sincere effort of continuing to contribute in this esteemed platform which increasingly appearing to me to be unnecessarily difficult if not almost impossible at this moment. Regards--AranyaPathak (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

. If the scholarly consensus is as you say, there will be articles in Peer reviewed journals and books published by academic publishers to cite, But Mahamba references only a 19th century travel book, reflecting, presumably what the local people told the traveller through interpreters. That's not sufficient evidence to show that anybody believed anything or had any real cultural tradition. Looking at your article most do not have anything approaching such references. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respected sir,

Please allow me to say that the response from you should be the model/ideal/examplar of communication in this platform; it is reassuring and motivating for those who sincerely wants to contribute in this reputed platform.

The project currently I am involved with is an ambitious one thus of some significant consequence and lasting value (to my humble opinion); hence it is also a demanding one; involving considerable allocation of personal resources like time, labor, money; and the work is rightly voluntary thus non remunerative; and I don't have any personal interest to satisfy or agenda to promote; but, given the reigning relevant circumstances that I am getting compelled to spend an inordinate amount of time just to protect the contents from outright deletion; while I myself is getting subjected to unjust accusations, threats and intimidation; I am sorry to say that it is fair to infer from the involvement of others so far that the prevailing practice is to expunge a content instead of contributing in it, by employing means that are totally alien, divorced from the content concerned; sadly, it is coming down to the question of privilege; so, for the sake of protection of the contents and their further planned enrichment kindly enable me by granting following rights - autopatrolled (which will protect the contents from vandalism), pending changes reviewer (enrichment of the new concerned category), new page reviewer (enrichment of the new concerned category); I am always ready to work under strict vigilance and scrutiny; I am always open towards invaluable constructive criticism; ready to learn and improve myself through dialogue, discussion or debate; what I am definitely not prepared for is to implicate myself in pointless, futile unproductive adversarial situation which apparently seems to be some kind of unhealthy, undesirable territorial battle; again allow me to contribute by granting the mentioned rights for the sake of the contents and the general interest of this reputable platform.

Thanks and Regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to nominate all of AranyaPathak's contributions so far for deletion. The first of those is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellengassen. Under no circumstance should they be granted autopatrolled. Nobody who declines to provide inline citation with page numbers should be able to avoid scrutiny of their contributions, especially not when it has already been established that those fail verification. Vexations (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AranyaPathak, I have been here 13 years, 12 as an administrator.(and 5 of them on the Arbitration Committee). That qualifies me to judge whether people are following the behavioral rules; it does not qualify me to be a judge of content. For most of the 13 years I have worked predominantly with the various stages and methods by which we keep or do not keep articles; I've participated in thousands of discussions; I've rescued many hundreds of articles; I've deleted many thousand; I've improved tens of thousands. This does give me a considerable degree of knowledge about what is considered acceptable, but it too does not qualify me to be a final judge of content. No one person is: only the community is the judge, and it decides for the individual articles by the WP:AFD process. A discussion at AfD is closed by someone, usually an administrator, deciding what the consensus is, based on the policy-based arguments of those who participate. These decisions are not always what any one person would consider correct, but aim at a certain degree of consistency. There are similar processes for deciding on fundamental policy and more detailed guidelines. Over time, it becomes clear what the community opinion is regarding various questions of content.
I do not necessarily agree with these opinions. I doubt that any individual who is very active here really agrees with all of our practices, but I have very definite and opinions about what parts of our content policy should be changed. Over the years, I have been able to convince the community in a very few cases to agree with me, or I have been part of a general change in opinion. For many guidelines I disagree with, when I need to make a decision involving them, I have only two choices--stay out of the discussion entirely, or follow what I know to be the community consensus no matter how strongly I disagree. If I tried to do otherwise, I would soon be removed as an administrator; if I made myself a nuisance about it, I might even be removed from the community.
On the question of the articles you propose to write, I cannot finally decide on them, but I think I can accurately predict what the community will do: they will not accept them in their present form based on their present sources. I gave you above some advice about the type of sources that would be needed, and about what alternatives you have to keep the content from being deleted. It's up to you whether to follow them, but if you continue a campaign to get them accepted in their present version, and continue the attitude of other community members that you are expressing above, I can also predict what will happen: you will either leave on your own account when you see you are not getting what you want, or be blocked.
When I came here, a few of the articles I first wrote were deleted, and some of my changes to others rejected. When I looked around further, and saw the opinions of people here generally, I decided not to continue to try to work in some specific fields, but concentrate on others. My opinions about some of them have not changed, but as I do not try to insist on them, I have had a very satisfying and I hope useful time here. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respected sir, what can I say but I am deeply touched by your response; please accept my gratitude and admiration; I might be wrong but I think I have received your message; and I have changed my mind; I will try to protect the concerned contents from vandalism as best as I can in spite of my severe disadvantages regarding rights/privileges through content enrichment; though I must confess that I am not at all optimistic about the result/effect given the existing circumstances; but after your response it is simply impossible for me personally to give up that easily which otherwise would have been a perfectly cogent and rational course of action. Thanks and regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Günter Bechly[edit]

I recently restored Günter Bechly because my research suggests he passes WP:GNG with the sources I listed in the article. I've also found this source which says he "has discovered and named more than 160 new species, and has 10 biological groups named in his honor. He has served on the editorial boards of two scientific journals, and has organized five large public exhibitions on Earth history and evolution." The sources in addition to his discoveries suggest that he passes both WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC, particularly #1: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

Sources have criticized his deletion from the encyclopedia including Evolution News, ACSH and Haaretz. As far as I can tell there is no evidence this is a creationist push as those are not creationist websites particularly the American Council on Science and Health. I wanted to mention a statement from the second DRV you made, but did not want to get any unwilling participate involved. Valoem talk contrib 17:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, eh, that looks a bit WP:CANVASSy, and you "forgot" to mention that your "recent" restoration due to your "research" is based on your having had the article userfied on 2018-05-06. That kind of deception is one of the reasons people are suspicious of the motivation for including an article on a creationist.
You state that "there is no evidence this is a creationist push as those are not creationist websites". What part of The articles published at Evolution News are copyright by Discovery Institute did you misunderstand? The ACSH article is an opinion piece and a masterful example of the slippery slope fallacy (you really think we're going to delete the article on Heisenberg?).
It's also interesrting that the sources you promote as discussing our supposed bias against creationists doin't get round to mentioning that the main author of the deleted article was Dr. Günter Bechly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (help!) 09:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you "forgot" to mention that your "recent" restoration due to your "research" is based on your having had the article userfied on 2018-05-06. That kind of deception is one of the reasons people are suspicious of the motivation for including an article on a creationist. What do you mean by deception? I restored an article in my user space is something wrong with that? There are other sources beyond the sources which you listed, I listed them in AfD, as per WP:CANVASS under Appropriate notification: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). Valoem talk contrib 14:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am well-known to be interested in the topic, and notifying one or two people who have expressed prior interest are is not canvassing. I think the people who need to explain their motivation are not those who would include this article, but those who would delete it. An ordinary article on a taxonomist of his standing would not have been listed for deletion except for the non-evolutionist aspect. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_162_Jul._2020&oldid=998756797"