User talk:DGG/Archive 98 Mar. 2015

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

World Islamic Economic Forum[edit]

Hi there. I would like to request that you recover from the bin the article on the World Islamic Economic Forum, if for no other reasons than that it occurred, it recurs, it attracts world leaders, it is newsworthy, and that it can be seen as another Davos. TIA.

66.186.95.40 (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malik House

Hello, firstly I am just wondering if you could provide me with the information that I put into this page, for further editing. Also, I am just wondering what else you would like me to put into the article to prove notability. I have used references from News Articles, that show that the company is a main company in Yorkshire. I would be gratefull for your advice, This was my first attempt at a article and I really want to try get it completed correctly before moving on (I don't like giving up easily) - ha! Thanks Scherer97 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


==

Law case article (G&B vs AIP and APS)[edit]

Hi there. It is a bit of a random question, but I was reading about the science publishers Gordon and Breach, and noticed this website near the top of a Google search. Do you know much about that legal case, 'Gordon & Breach v. American Institute of Physics and American Physical Society'? When I read that, I thought of you and a couple of others and was thinking that maybe that is one of those cases where an article might be possible. What do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly remember it well. I was Biology Librarian at Princeton at the time & I participated in the general effort to cancel all possible subscriptions to their journals, & commented on the web also to that effect. (I used the name dgoodman@princeton.edu for my postings.) For the final result, see [1]. The best way to handle this is to change the redirect to an article about the company, where this is only one of the things to discuss. It wouldn't be right to add this to the present page where the redirect goes to, T&F, since they had nothing to do with the matter--they only bought the surviving company. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I suspected you might know more about it. I agree the redirect should be made into an article, but might not get to that very soon. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help, but I was involved in RL and don't want to be the primary editor. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal sandbox edits[edit]

Hi DGG -- if you have a chance this week, maybe you could take a look at the edits I've made to my sandbox based on your suggestions. There's a link to it further up your talkpage, from our previous discussion. Thanks and hope all is well. Ed0Strasse (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a connected contributor template to the article. I will also add one to the GOQii article as I intend to request edits there as well. If you still have any interest in reviewing/merging the content I've prepared for the Gondal article, you can find it in my sandbox. If not, I totally understand and will stay out of your hair. Ed0Strasse (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very pleased you added the template. It would be great if others followed your example. It may not have been clear in earlier years that such a declaration was required. I'll try to get back to the article and the draft. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of an article[edit]

Hi, I have noticed that you have proposed deletion of Bonapartes Serviced Apartments, Brisbane via PROD. Since it is a one-line article that is almost two years old, I would have thought it qualified for A7 speedy deletion because there is no indication of importance. Just for my own benefit, may I ask why you chose the PROD tag instead? Thanks in advance, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether we would classify the articles as about a building or a business enterprise. As a business enterprise it would be A7, but as a building it wouldn't be. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning towards business because of the links to the homepage and youtube. But it will be deleted eventually, so better to do it the fairest way possible. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from creator of the article Hip Brand Group that you deleted[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted my article Hip Brand Group even though it was of similar quality to articles for related companies in the same area, such as Kinetic Communications. It had much more information than that page, and yet that Kinetic Communications article is still live, and has been for a long time without being deleted. How can I further improve the content of the Hip Brand Group article I wrote so I can put it back live without being deleted? Thank you for your consideration Green rabbit72 (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are quite right: that other page should be deleted also. There's many such articles in WP, left over from when our standards were lower. It is particularly important that we remove them so they don't serve as models. There are many different ways to write low quality promotional pages about non-notable companies: in your case, the article was primarily a list of clients. That goes on your website, not in an encyclopedia. I'd be very glad to be notified of similar articles.
By the way, are you aware of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure  ? DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: Draft:Edward Pomorski[edit]

Not a hoax, but I simply cannot find any reliable sources, the not-a-hoax verdict is simply fumes of metadata (he appears in one reliable database I can see only google's snippet of and few more troublesome sources). I am not seeing anything in the bio that jumps at me and screams notable; the awards are mid-tier I think. You could ask at WT:POLAND for a 2nd opinion, but I think he fails GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unintended thanks[edit]

Recent thanks were accidental - lousy screen design on mobile makes it far too easy to hit button by mistake and my complaints on this get little response. Also seems imposible to add new talk page section tidily! PamD 06:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft A demand for action[edit]

Hi i would like to work to create the page for "A demand for action". I might need some help at the end when I finish it, just a check up so everything is ok before publishing it. Therefore id like to work with it as a draft before publishing, could you help me with this and also approve it once I finish it? Thedavee (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 10[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
  • New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
  • TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Allianz Australia[edit]

Hello DGG, I'm writing to inquire about the possibility of your reinstating Allianz Australia's page, which I published last month on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allianz_Australia and which was promptly marked for speedy deletion. To share some background, Allianz Australia is a bone fide registered entity in Australia which operates independently to their Munich headquarters and is the fourth largest insurer in Australia (determined by number of policy holders). This page addition follows in the footsteps of a similar entity with locale specific page such as AXA Canada and AXA Ireland. Even a relatively unknown insurer called Bingle who operates purely online and is a subsidiary of the Suncorp group has its own Wikipedia page. What's more Allianz Australia is keen to establish it's own presence in Wikipedia, as this information is ultimately displayed alongside their brand search results when a user searches for their brand name in Google. Currently their Munich headquarters company information appears, via the knowledge graph, and is ultimately displaying information which isn't actually relevant to the brand in Australia. We would also be happy to amend the article to enable it to avoid it being classed as 'unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service'. If you agree to our getting another chance to submit this entry, we would remove the award links, since admittedly these were all pointing to Allianz's own website (in the absence of the awards bodies having specific pages), and we could look to incorporate some background information around Allianz Australia's acquisition of Manufacturers Mutual Insurance which was a notable move in the industry at the time. I look forward to hearing from you. MikiClarke (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)MikiClarke[reply]

Among the reasons for having a WP page is not that "Allianz Australia is keen to establish it's own presence in Wikipedia, as this information is ultimately displayed alongside their brand search results" That's SEO, and Wikipedia doesn't do that--SEO is totally antithetical to the purposes of an encyclopedia. It is possible to have a page for a separate national division of a company, but there has to be enough specific material and references. As you recognize yourself, the article had no references outside of its own website, and looking at the material, I see nothing that could't be handled by expanding the section of the main article a little, and making a redirect to it. Checking the articles of the other companies you mention, I see they all need substantial improvement, emerging, or deletion. I've started, though I may have to leave it to others to finish.
You have every right to try again. This time, include only significant events, write in paragraphs instead of in a table, and don't copy it from the company website. The references to awards should not be to the organization making the award, but references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. ::And I call your attention to the our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DGG. I will take on board your feedback and give it another try, making sure to include information over and above that of Allianz's own website and references to third-party independent reliable sources. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikiClarke (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Submission decline on Exilant Technologies[edit]

hi DGG, First of all , thanks much for the speedy review. Can you please help me with a little specific info around language neutrality in the specific article Exilant Technologies in terms of which areas I need to address in particular. I tried to model the article on the lines of similar industry profile pages (not naming them to make it sound bad). It will be a big help if you can point out the specific mistakes that I need to correct. This learning will help me going forward for future articles as well where I plan to contribute. Regards. Devopam (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Among the factors: if the companies acquired goes on a time line, they shouldn't go also in a list. A list of "industry verticals" that includes essentially everything is promotional. A list of routine services is a little dubious, if it's just what is expected. A list of products is appropriate content, but they cannot be linked to external sources within the article--they can be referenced, but external links that appear in blue are called pseudolinks here. A list of locations is sometimes acceptable--photos of each of them are not, especially when they are misleading pictures of large buildings within which they have a small office. The picture of the board of directors is not suitable content. (FWIW, every one of the photos is of very low quality)
another problem is notability: there need to be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Not one of the references here falls into that category. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closure request[edit]

Hi DGG. This is to ask for a favor. There is a rather involved discussion at Talk:Lhasa#Proposed move. It should still run for a few days, maybe until Sunday. Would you be willing to close it when you think it is appropriate and say what happens to the Lhasa article and the proposed User:Aymatth2/Lhasa (prefecture-level city)? If so, I can note that in the discussion. I think everyone involved would accept your decision. Thanks in advance :) Aymatth2 (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be moving towards consensus. Remind me tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will remind you on Saturday. I do not want any sense that the decision is being rushed. Thanks again, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder. The discussion seems to have sputtered out. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practical phonetic training[edit]

Many thanks for your advice and suggestions for improvement. I believe I have now at last understood why my way of writing about my subject is not what WP expects. RoachPeter (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

combined <ref> for multiple citations[edit]

FYI --Jeremyb (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had never noticed it, but it's a fairly frequent technique in academic writing. I do not see how it is easily compatible with using wikidata for references. There would appear to be two directions: either to make a hack that would be able to parse such references, or deprecate this referencing technique and convert the existing ones manually, which will be easy enough, if someone can figure out how to find them. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any <ref> that has bullets (unordered list), multiple CS1 templates, or multiple bare external links should be suspect. (but if a single CS1 generates multiple external links that's ok. e.g. url && archive-url) Anyway, if there's a discussion started I'd like a pointer to it. Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intercollegiate Studies Institute[edit]

What on earth do you mean by claiming that Intercollegiate Studies Institute[2] was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion"? There was no advertising or promotion. It was a neutral and well-sourced article of high quality. To delete such a page - and speedy-delete at that - is outrageous. Please undelete without delay. --Jonund (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor nominated it, saying: "Please note, I've cleaned up the lead section, but the remainder of the article is just rife with blatant promotion. Not much worth salvaging.)" I agree, taking note of such phrases as "SI steers its brightest and most talented students.." "SI also grants its most talented student journalists ..." :talented graduate students..." "SI fights alleged political correctness and liberal bias..." "SI also hosts dozens of ..." "... media scrutiny on questionable campus events ..." "SI uses programs intended to supplement a collegiate education and provides access to resources that help achieve an education based primarily on works of influential men and women in the European and Christian traditions. " , " a national audience of readers " and a quote from Ronald Regan saying " I am proud to count many ISI products among the workhorses of my two terms as President." --all of which are perfectly suitable for your web page, but not an encyclopedia. There is nothing to prevent your writing an article that is not propaganda. As we use it, "promotion" includes other things than merely commercial advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have proved yorself unable of distinguishing between neutral statements and propaganda. You had better leave WP alone, since it is not intended for politically motivated censorship. --Jonund (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:47, 8 March 2015 review of submission by Krystel Espiritu[edit]


Hello, Could you please specify how my article sounds like an advertisement because I sincerely have only stated facts about them from notable newspaper and magazine articles about the company through the references stated within my draft. And I have not mentioned any brands or products they sell, only stating how, when and where they've started out and how they are now.

I really wish to publish this article as it was the first officially approved optician store in Kuwait and yet still remained relevant til this date.

Could you send me links to articles which are similar to mine and maybe I could adapt a few changes then re-submit?

Some examples I've found and took pointers from are these; Vision Express & M.H. Alshaya Co.

Thank you, Krystel Espiritu (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Hassan’s Optician Company was founded on the principle of improving people's vision- it is the same principle and mission which has remained in the heart of the company" and similar material is just advertising. And there are too many other expressions of quality and praise; a WP article is descriptive. That it routinely follows the same standards as everyone else is unnecessary; that it has won routine awards from its supplier's is not encyclopedic information. The explanation that the various brands sold are famous is unnecessary. Locations of the various stores is better done on the firm's web page. Putting the names of the various members of the family in bold is inappropriate. Photos of their store-fronts adds no real information--and, incidentally, they are extremely low quality photos. The references are mostly to PR sites, or reprints of articles without giving the sources. And the principal claim " the first official approved optician in Kuwait, licensed by the Department of Health" needs a good source. The article is in general somewhat excessive for the importance of the company, but it should be possible to rewrite to produce an adequate article. . The two articles you methion are about very much larger companies--they are not very good articles, but they are able to be descriptive by simply specifying their many expansions and acquisitions.

Similar faults are present in many articles on businesses in Wikipedia, from the days when our standards were lower. It will be a long time before we remove them all, but we don't want to ad to their number. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello once again, I'm in the process of re-writing the article and have noted everything you've said but regarding "the first official approved optician in Kuwait, licensed by the Department of Health" I have documents and the scanned certificate/license of it, can that be enough of a reference/source? Could I upload it on wikicommon and use it as such? Krystel Espiritu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have , I assume, documents showing ministry of health approval. But what you need is evidence that you were the first such to be approved. That would normally have to come from a secondary source--see [[[WP:PRIMARY]]. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Indeed, the certificate/ license has the number on itself stating it was the first given by the Ministry of Health to Dr. Hassan Saadat. Isn't that document with that statement enough? - "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source."
Also I have pictures of the event which are PD from the company's archive, there was tv/newscoverage coverage which was before I was even born but I can get the exact time, tv studio and name of the people involved - would this be enough evidence?
Thank you again for your patience with me, Krystel Espiritu (talk)
Please see WP:OR. This sort of primary data takes interpretation. You are probably right, but it can not be assumed without knowing the administrative history. It might be the first in a new series--the earlier licenses might have been given in another form or by another body. That sort of thing take research. The most that could be said is that it was numbered " one". Whether you can insert a scan of it here depends on some absurdly complicated copyright regulations; government documents are not automatically in the public domain, except US national government documents. DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Intercollegiate Studies Institute[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

19:11:19, 8 March 2015 review of submission by Vivekgupta23[edit]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meritnation Vivekgupta23 (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC) I have added all the reliable information to this article. Please tell me in detail, how can i improve it further. Thanks for your co-operation.[reply]

The problem is that there are no references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Ref. 1 1 is a mere routine announcement of earnings, Ref.2 a similar routine notice of funding. Ref. 3 is irrelevant to notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris McKinney[edit]

Hello, DGG. You commented that this should be merged. The extra sources were written by me, and I have moved them.. The one extra sentence was not encyclopedia and I have added a toned-down replacement to the mainspace article. Do you think it still needs merging, or can it be deleted?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it for speedy as already covered in the existing article. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)[edit]

Hello! I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Cote[edit]

Hey DGG, I wanted to thank you for your comments on David Cote's talk page about my proposed changes. I went ahead and made the edits that you, Edwardx, and User:Cullen328 suggested, and I was hoping you could take a look at my revisions if you're not too busy. I really appreciate the time you took to give me feedback; it's been immensely helpful in my wikipedian education, and it keeps me honest as a writer. Would you mind if I reach out to you again in the future on similar projects? FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, thanks again so much for collaborating with me on revising and updating the David M. Cote Wikipedia article. I hope this can be the first of many collaborations. I updated my sandbox with your last comments; if you've got a minute, would you mind taking one last glance at the updated version and comment on David Cote's talk page? Your help goes a long way and is truly appreciated. FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lhasa again[edit]

I can sense your frustration. This debate is driving me crazy too. I have tried to summarize the situation at talk:Lhasa#Summary of Positions. There is a lot of new material at User:Aymatth2/Lhasa (prefecture-level city) which I would hate to have to scrap because we can't agree what to call it or where to put it. There will never be a unanimous agreement. How can we move forward? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a disadvantage in not knowing the language, and without that it is not possible to figure out the actual meaning of administrative divisions. I know the meanings for the US, including many of the idiosyncrasies that affect my own region, and to some extent I have knowledge of some other countries, but I'm helpless in the presence of disagreement about what I cannot not myself understand or learn to understand.
I gave my opinion, as an opinion. You may add it to the chart. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, really. I will add you to the chart. Place names are confusing everywhere, not just in China. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy categories[edit]

On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies you claimed that having a controversy category is standard practice. Why did you say so? Debresser (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been unclear--we usually do not actually call it controversies.If anything, we try to avoid the word if possible. I corrected my statement accordingly DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflictPerhaps you'd like to add that to your post there? By the way, as you can see there is a large controversies section on Eliezer Berland and still I don't see a category Breslov-related controversies. Or a controversies-related category on Elazar Shach, even though he was a very controversial personality. By the way, let me add that one. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did just now add that. .As for controversy sections, calling one "Political life" is a good title. But for the section there, perhaps though part of it should be separated as "religious disputes". As for the heresy sections, perhaps a brief explanation for English reads would help a little. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference[edit]

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC 2015

You are invited to join us at Barnard College for Wikipedia Day NYC 2015, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference for the project's 14th birthday. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

10:00pm - 9:00 pm at Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, by W 118th St

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please comment on Talk:Mohale Dam[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohale Dam. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weigh in on an AfD?[edit]

Hey, I need a bit of a favor. I'm in the middle of an AfD for Rebecca Donovan and the AfD is starting to get a little heated. I've asked Yunshui to weigh in since he's very good at diplomacy and I'm asking you since you are very good with determining if a source is a RS or not. I don't really want you to argue for a keep or delete, mostly I just want to get you to come in and look at how the AfD is unfolding. The author hasn't been covered that often in RS, which is the biggest issue here. She has a lot of trivial and primary sources (which I've outlined in the AfD), but so far she has yet to receive any actual usable review for her work. So far all she has to her name are three sources, two of which need to be verified in some way. One is a lengthy USA Today article about her, but the other two are a Boston Globe article that is only viewable through Highbeam for depth and a local free magazine. I can't really verify that the magazine is all that usable since it appears to be your run of the mill local free magazine and regular local coverage. The Boston Globe source is better, but it also runs the risk of being routine local coverage as well, despite the BG being a fairly mainstream newspaper. Essentially what we have here is an author who is close to notability but has yet to really achieve it.

Now the other thing that's going on is that I'm having a back and forth with an editor over comments that he's made at AfD. Long story short, he and another editor were making several comments that I saw as being made in bad faith about various AfDs. They were making comments about AfD nominations being "dumb" (thus indirectly calling myself and the other nominators dumb), about how the nominators didn't search right, and how AfDs like this were driving away female editors because we're deleting articles on women and so on. I tried asking him to assume good faith, as the comments could be construed as an attack against other editors- especially the "dumb" comment and the bit about the searches, since it actually came across (to me) like he was saying that nominators were deliberately ignoring search results because they wanted to delete an article. He responded by further saying that I was just proving his point about driving away female editors and so on. He's made similar-ish comments at other AfDs and I'd prefer that this not have to go to ANI. It's not quite terrible yet, but it's also past the point of ridiculousness. I don't think that he's going to pay attention to anything I say, so I think that it's time to bring in other editors. I figure that if you think that the sources are good enough to keep the article on, I'll believe you. I will say that you will likely have to explain the usable and unusable sources in the article just for future AfD purposes and to show that I wasn't just making up policy. The sources are a little difficult on this one since some of them do seem usable at first but a little digging shows that they're unusable, particularly the SugarScape article. The story with that one is that it initially looks good but looking at the site shows that it's run by one of the branches of Hachette, who is also publishing the author's work. Most of the other sources are trivial, but that's the big one that I had to point out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TP stalker here - I had looked at the page a year ago, changing the category after 'categorygate' and notice a string of edits from a username that seemed one a COI/publicist might choose (and put the page on my watch list). I left two messages at that user talk page, but got no reaction. I do have HighBeam, and will check the Boston Globe article (by midnight March 10, if I can be trusted). - Neonorange (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've given my opinion on the article; I am not going to comment on the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was kind of hoping that you would, since I do take a lot of exception to his allegations that I was being uncivil and driving people away. I'm not an uncivil person on here and I was also fairly upset that a lot of his arguments centered upon what looked like him assuming bad faith on my part (and other editors) and potentially taking his frustrations with other AfDs out on me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I';ve tried to correct it. I can only say that first, I was more tired at the time than I should have been, due to involvement in something else here in a way that I find exceptionally unpleasant, and second, that I saws specific content-based issue and left it at that DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that we usually disagree on almost everything, but I respect you as an editor. I thought your comments at the AfD were well-spoken and wise. However, I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of criticism that Tokyogirl79 is taking at that AfD. It seems like everything she says or does is being critiqued and dissected in bad faith. People have asked the instigators to lay off the nominator, but it's still continuing. It's very frustrating, and I don't think I can contribute to the discussion when it has that kind of toxic atmosphere. I don't know what I expect you to do about it, but I think this is the kind of situation that causes us to lose valued contributors. It's also the kind of discussion that causes people to avoid contributing to AfD, in my opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my comment of15:37 today will have dealt with that; if not, let me know.But I'm not at all sure what previous disagreements you have in mind, for I deliberately try not to remember just who it was I disagree with on anything in particular. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Internet Research[edit]

Hello. You closed the AFD discussion regarding Center for Internet Research, citing the article was a copyright violation. However, it appears that the owner of the content created the article and released it under the proper license, at least as indicated on the article's (deleted) talk page. Just making sure you saw that. --ZimZalaBim talk 05:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss it. My fault entirely, and the attribution is currently a sufficient CC-by-sa license. Whatever objections there may be to the article, this is not reason to delete, so I undid my close and restored the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Newlands[edit]

What do you think? Sufficiently different not to zap, or? Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

different, but does not meet objections at the afd. I listed it for afd DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete[edit]

I probably should have included the following on the articles talk page. The previous deleted articles created by this editor and numerous sock puppets include Royal College (Panadura) Sri Lanka, Royal College, (Panadura) Sri Lanka, Royal College (Panadura), Royal College (Panadura.), Royal College - (Panadura) & Royal College, Panadura (Srilanka). This is a repeat offender who has been blocked but continues to create sock puppets to recreate versions of the same article. Dan arndt (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted as A10. I suggest you now create redirects to Panadura Royal College from the various possible names, if that article is acceptable. . DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately everytime a duplicate article is deleted the editor, through a new sock puppet, re-creates the article with a slight variation, such as Royal College (Sri Lanka)- Panadura so that it appears as a new article without any prior history. Dan arndt (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask at SPI--I have checkuser, but I'm not yet competent in it. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> yet another re-creation, this time at Royal College- Panadura. Dan arndt (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected. The alternate namesake possible redirects. I also merged some relevant content. Ido not see what the point of all this when we already have an article. It would be better to merge content, and if there is a name dispute on the proper name, that can be discussed. (Thai language names are beyond my abilities), DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{U|Dan arndt}}, why is it necessary to delete instead of redirecting.? Most of these are acceptable alternate names. I redirected again, and protected the redirect, and I hard-blocked, which may do doe good; but we need an SPI to see if there is a blockable range. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Lobliner.
Message added 02:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NORTH AMERICA1000 02:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

look at the "references"~- Perhaps I should have used speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis F. Lee article question[edit]

Greetings DGG, Thank you for accepting this article. I see that Start status means there is still a lot of work to do. With respect to references, like many inventors and professors of that era (not to mention Asian immigrants), Dr. Lee was “behind the scenes.” Looking at analogous Wikipedia entries as I wrote the article, I noticed that, for his generation, published obituaries in top newspapers frequently serve as key evidence of notability. Fortunately, Dr. Lee is still living (he turned 88 on 1/28/2015), so a newspaper obituary is (happily) not an option. I will continue to look for references and see what I can turn up. With respect to (1) adding content that readers will want, (2) writing style, and (3) organization, could you give me any specific pointers? For example, should there be more detailed explanations of the inventions? Or personal biography? Perhaps you could refer me to an article that would serve as a model for content and organization? Thanks for your help, truly appreciated. Sabrina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrina Barton (talk • contribs) 15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the basic bio facts need a reference of some sort. for his various inventions, a patent is not proof that it was a new discovery altogether, because it's a primary source requiring interpretation; secondary sources are needed, and they are also need to show the invention was actually used. This sort of thing can often be handled by rewording. Normally when I accept a draft, I am just saying the article can survive in mainspace; I fix any major formatting errors that can be easily fixed, and usually give it a classification at the lower end because I do not evaluate it further. I see from some previous questions here this can cause some confusion, and I need to consider whether perhaps I shouldn't give a rating at all, unless I say specifically it's a stub. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful! Thanks. It's nice to work with a pro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrina Barton (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Microsoft Office Language Packs for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Microsoft Office Language Packs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Office Language Packs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:53, 13 March 2015 review of submission by Jtrosenb[edit]


I understand that you feel that my piece on the Legacy Devers Eye Institute is not notable. I have added four additional references so that there are now 23 citations, none of which is from a Legacy Devers or corporate publication/advertisement. In addition to the references, I provided 5 representative publications from 100s. Wikipedia has articles on Joseph Robertson, Carmen Puliafito, and James Rosenbaum, thus providing further evidence of the notability. With regard to the piece reading like an advertisement, I have tried to remove any adjective that might seem promotional. Rosenbaum was described as "well known" and I deleted that. Terry made innovations or improvements in corneal transplantation; I did not change this because that is the description in the reference. Please let me know if there are specific changes that you suggest to improve this piece. Jtrosenb (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Jtrosenb (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My role as a reviewer is to accept from draft those articles that are in practice not likely to be deleted, not to judge notability in the abstract.

  1. The references needed to show notability need to provide substantial coverage bout the Institute from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Articles in local papers help, but do not fully show notability. Articles about individual people show their role, but do not necessarily show the notability of the Institute, though if they are , for example about the director of the Institute, they can help show the notability of the Institute.
  2. Experience here is that , rightly or wrongly, it is rather difficult for hospitals to show notability by our rules, and this is no reflection of their importance in real life. It generally helps to combine articles on the hospitals in a system into an article on the entire system. If, as here, one has a distinctive name, a redirect can be made.
  3. A list of representatives publications is not appropriate. A list of the most cited publications can be; the articles need to be listed in full bibliographic format.
  4. A list of notable people at the institute, either current or past workers there, is appropriate. But it should be limited to those with Wikipedia articles, and linked to their articles--or to those obviously qualified for them, and show their qualification (such as a named professorship, or President of a society , or editor in chief of a major journal. Some, but not all, of those included will qualify. This part is usually written as a list. For those with articles, the articles explain their importance--what needs to be referenced here is their connection with the institute.
  5. As a very important matter of style, the references needs to be given in an acceptable format. See WP:REFBEGIN for the basics.
  6. We normally omit titles, such as Dr. and M.D.. (unless necessary for clarity, which is not likely to be the case here). DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need some assistance, and no longer know how to approach this subject[edit]

About a year ago, you were involved with a discussion on Involuntary celibacy, I've always had an issue with this close reflecting the apparent anti-fringing pushing bias rampant on Wikipedia these days. Upon viewing this version of the article I cannot find any guideline violating issues. Tone appears neutral and sources are not only mainstream, but academic. The contentious history regarding the article could only suggest that another DRV is going to be long and difficult. Alone there is nothing I can do, but with help I was hoping to overturn the deletion of the subject. It appears that the NFRINGE noticeboards have become a pool of anti-fringe canvassing whose editors decisions are confirmed and unchangeable prior to any debate. Wikipedia has never been a place where only mainstream views are accepted this in itself is a violation of NPOV we have long sought to establish yet it appears the trend is growing and correlates with the editor drain we have experienced. My gut tells me this article is the first step to changing the environment ... what can we do? Valoem talk contrib 23:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Coffee to allow the article restored with no bias for immediate renomination instead of DRV. Valoem talk contrib 23:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


There is more than one question here.
As for Fringe, I never liked the way we deal it, where we insist from the first that it is non-standard and hammer at that repeatedly, We instead ought to present it as fully as necessary for understanding in its own terms, and then say what people think of it. We need to avoid giving any false indication that fringe topics are accepted, but we still need to avoid giving primarily hostile coverage. If presented fairly, people will understand the relevance--that's the basic premise of an encyclopedia. We do not have to slant or censor, even by implication. WhatI particularly dislike is our tendency to try to minimize the coverage of people associated with a movement we disapprove of (or alternatively of maximizing the number of otherwise reputable people involved to a trivial extent for the sake of denigrating the the individuals)
I consider topics such as this unusual, but not fringe. ("Unusual" is the most neutral word I can find.) Outside sex, some political and religious topics are strongly disfavored. Others, equally unusual or far from the mainstream, but that do have a constituency here, resist all tendencies to discuss them with moderation, rather than in a frankly propagandistic manner.
But sex is always the most difficult area. WP has for long as I can remember been rather hostile to some forms of otherwise unexceptional sexual expression. People have a remarkable ability to disdain those forms of sexual expression they do not engage in; there seems to be some human need to assign some sexual practices as acceptable, and others not, presumably in order to reassure oneself that one is oneself doing it "right" rather than being a victim of limitations, and the supposedly tolerant community insists on resisting serious treatment of things that are now but did not used to be considered subjects for open discourse. For example, there's been a surprising amount of difficulty with articles on even conventional sex toys.
The best way of dealing with such topics is first find as many additional references as possible. All difficult topics of any sort are best done by accumulating such an overwhelming body of references that he even the opponents realize. Tokyogirl79 has done a good job of it, but there's almost certainly still more to be done, especially considering the multiple uses. I think there are quite a range of different consensual and nonconsensual practices here, which have ended up in this one article because of the resistance to covering them individually. I unfortunately do not really have the time to work on it. I recall there was a 1973 book with the title "SM: the last taboo" ISBN 9780818401787, whose title I thought a good quick explanation of the problem in a few words. (the book itself is apparently a short anthology of stories, not likely to a usable reference) This is 40 years later, and everything in popular culture considered, I don't think the taboo really holds. Except, of course, in WP, which, while it should be the location for work on unusual things , is also the home of obsolete prejudices. People get very easily embarrassed about sex.
However, I do not think we have an editor drain. We merely have the expected transition from a exciting new project to something which may be still exciting, but is not particularly new. People will naturally stay here for only four or five years. Relatively few make it a career, or a life-long hobby. People try out new things, and then turn to others; our contributor base is always going to be dynamic. What I do hope is that we will come to attract a wider group than the typical post-adolescent white male geeks. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the encyclopedia has not reached or in someways regressed in terms of scope. I think removing subjectivity from the closing of AfDs is the optimal method. After the article is restored I assume Tarc is going to AfD it immediately, some input when that happens would be appreciated! Valoem talk contrib 18:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RFC is up, comments would be appreciated. :) Valoem talk contrib 20:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Well said. In particular that the community tends to use FRINGE to rationalize attack pages, rather than merely documenting that their viewpoint is not accepted by mainstream science/medicine, using reliable sources. I'll take a look at your RfC as well Valoem. I also recently noticed that more effort has been spent on Victoria Secret than all of the articles under Category:Feminine hygiene brands combined (with exception to the one I wrote on Playtex). I found this strange, even given the gender gap, because so many women are interested in women's health, so I wonder if it is because people are too embarrassed to contribute. I looked up the Durex page after they did a presentation at a marketing conference. One of the biggest global condom brands and just a stub on it. Marginally notable supermodels and pornstars have more robust pages. CorporateM (Talk) 16:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I did some research and commented there, however I wonder if you would still oppose the proposed article-title, now that I've shown an abundance of source material that uses the same phrase. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose exactly, but I wonder whether it covers all aspects. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaygan Kheradpir[edit]

Do you think I got this wrong?[3] The editor keeps adding poorly-sourced awards and patents. He argues against including products the BLP's team invented that were unsuccessful, doesn't want layoffs and outsourcing included and often uses sources that do not actually support the article-text regarding his accomplishments. Also, the timing and sequence of edits with another SPA is suspicious. It sure has all the tell-tale signs of tenuous editing from a Wiki-PR type. But he insists I am just byting the newbie.

Am I gullible if I believe him and am I bully if I don't? How are we suppose to know one way or another? Should I file an SPI to find out if the two SPAs are the same person? (any good astroturfing firm already knows how to avoid detection anyway). CorporateM (Talk) 03:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You'll see there I have a COI with the man's former employer Juniper Networks. I'm kinda hoping you'll tell me I'm paranoid, because I feel myself spiraling into skepticism given all the agenda-based editing and battlegrounding I've seen of late. But - perhaps in my skepticism - I have a hard time believing him. Even as far back as last year when I provided Juniper an assessment and he still worked there, I told them it gave me the impression of paid editing. Now that he's left Juniper, the only thing they actually care about is this section, but it's still frustrating personally. CorporateM (Talk) 16:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had looked yesterday, and am trying to decide what to say. I was puzzled, for indeed it did not look like the usual coi editing, which cares much more about the current position. What you say has clarified it, though you may find I take a somewhat different position than you on the actual contents. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, in this particular case his most recent stuff is regarding a somewhat mysterious and abrupt departure from Juniper Networks under allegations of inappropriate conduct with a customer. The fact that he has three versions of his website (linked to under External links), with each having just recently become active in January, also seems to suggest the work of a reputation management firm to me. Anyways, I will most likely support whatever you suggest, as a matter of WP:COIMICRO and a general trust in your judgement. CorporateM (Talk) 17:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't leave me hanging. Now I'm curious about this content issue you said we'd disagree on. CorporateM (Talk) 07:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I started an RfC, though it doesn't seem to be going my way. CorporateM (Talk) 03:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HaitiCROWD help[edit]

Hi DGG, Thanks so much for all of your help during Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Afrocrowd/HaitiCrowd! I was wondering if you could prevent a deletion of an article which had no references on Saturday but that we have since beefed up considerably: Beethova Obas. Thanks in advance! --Aliceba (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made another edit to remove some overly close paraphrase; we told people about this several times, but it seems it will need yet more emphasis--perhaps a slide. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WealthForge notability[edit]

Hi DGG, can you please consider removing the tag for deletion on WealthForge? I added some references, and may add more soon. This is a real startup company, recognized as a company to watch in Richmond, and plays a considerable role in peer-to-peer financing. The company also relates to the JOBS Act, showing how lessening regulations boosted business for crowdfunding platforms. Moreover, Wikipedia already has pages for many similar companies, some of which rely on WealthForge's services or technology. Therefore, this company is notable and should not be deleted. Otherwise, you should tag most of the other crowdfunding businesses for deletion. Thanks, Talbot0893 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we have pages for similar companies, and they're as promotional as this and prove as little, we need to get rid of them, not add to their number. For details, see my comment at the AfD.
Incidentally, I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not paid, nor do I have any significant association with this organization. I am a student at the University of Richmond who knows of the company and wanted to add it because I am interested in the crowdfunding industry and how it works. Please read my response on the deletion entry. I try to justify why the page should stay, but you likely know better than I do whether Wikipedia should keep it or not. I am not trying to promote the company, it's just that I had less sources to work with than I thought I would, and I started pulling information from promotional materials. I tried to tone down the language, but it needs more editing. Thank you for your work keeping Wikipedia credible. I don't mean to make your job harder, I just think this company is interesting. - Talbot0893 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talbot0893 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the clarification. So many articles on commercial and non commercial organizations and the people connected with them are apparently being written by undeclared paid editors, that it would be unfair not to warn people of our rules--it was an alert, not an accusation. And we do seem to be getting attempts at articles on every possible crowd funded projects, because every one of them needs publicity and often does get PR that can be cited. Unfortunately, there's a difference between interesting and notable. A good thing to do at this point is to rapidly improve the article; I gave some detailed suggestions. Even better might be to wait until there is some better sources. We did in practice accept many PR based sources in the past, but we're learning how to distinguish. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion of article[edit]

Hi DGG. I'd like to help improve Wikipedia, and I'm new here. My first article is about the company Orgenetics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgenetics), and it seems that you've flagged it for deletion because I've used the only references I could find online (which is mainly its website and other industry sites). I'm not sure why this is called promotional if I'm just stating the facts that are readily available for view on the website? It would be promotional if I was listing non-factual statements. But all the write up there currently is factual that is backed by references, and isn't biased in any way. In my view, it seems in line with many of the other privately held company pages on Wikipedia. Thanks, and please let me know how I can improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HealthTake (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basic principle here is WP:GNG, that we judge notability on the basis of whether reliable publications have given the subject significant attention. (This may or may not be the ideal way of deciding what to cover, but it is in almost all cases the way we make the decisions, and that's not likely to change.) There need to be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements or based on press releases. If there are, an article might be possible, but if not, not. Publications written by the firm can be used to give straightforward information, but by their very nature cannot show that anyone else has given enough attention. Refs 1,2,3, 5, 6, & 7 were clearly written by the company. ref. 4 is just a list of the certified products it makes--that shows existence, but not importance. Ref 8 is a pure press release and amounts to an advertisement. If there is nothing more to be found, such as a major independent review of the company by a reputable independent publisher, the firm cannot be shown to be notable.
As for promotionalism ,the statement of its humanitarian mission is pure praise of the firm. Otherwise, the article is factual. The main problem is the lack of evidence for notability. It's true we have similar articles from past years when we had lower standards. It's taking a long time to weed them out. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I mostly disagree with this as I still think the Wiki article I wrote is factual and non-biased, and represents an article on a company with all the available info. That includes the bit about the humanitarian mission. It's not a praise of the firm. It's a fact drawn from the firm's website. Would you rather have articles that only selectively mention a firm's activities? (FYI, many of the Wikipedia articles on firms (including some Fortune 500 corporations) mention their humanitarian missions as factual statements with references only to the firm's website, and nothing more... So you should really try to inspect those as well with the idea of fairness). As for "notable," the current definition Wikipedia is using is rather incapable, and it's very unfortunate. There are many "notable" and significant firms in the world economies that might not have third party biographies or summaries simply because they're not well known to consumers or masses, or haven't received any attention in the media. That doesn't mean they have no notability or aren't significant in their niche. Anyways, it seems I fundamentally disagree with your opinion and Wikipedia's policies, so this would be a moot point until any of it changed. Thanks for the feedback and explanations. HealthTake ( talk ) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:17:26, 18 March 2015 review of submission by Lilkjj2001[edit]


Good afternoon, I am requesting this review in order to understand further if my submission was accepted or rejected. I resubmitted my article twice and haven't gotten a response to weather is was submitted correctly or not. I have resubmitted it again today, March 18th, 2015 and am looking for some feedback. Lilkjj2001 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lilkjj2001 (talk · contribs), the article you submitted was just a directory entry. We are not a directory. Our articles do more that just list the subject; they describe the subject, and also not advocate for it or praise it, and are directed not to prospective clients of contributors, but to the general public who may want the sort of information found in encyclopdias. See also our rules on what makes an organization notable. If you can meet those standards with references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, then try again, writing in paragraphs If not, an article will not be possible at this time. .
If you are associated with the organization, either directly or as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.







Please review new article[edit]

DGG, This is Mary from the LPA. Could you take a look at another article I wrote? Here is the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mfrm123/Eugen_Haile

Thanks much! Mfrm123 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((U|Mfrm}} -- it's excellent except for some points of style --I moved it to mainspace as Eugen Halle. Some points of WP style-- (1) I linked writers and musicians that have an enWP article-- there are some who do not who may have a deWP article, which ideally should be searched for and if found linked in the form [[de:''title'']] ; I left a deliberate redlink where I think an article is needed. (2) We do not give a reference to a Wikipedia article -- we just link the term--please go back and fix this (3). We do not use "Mr." except in direct quotations. I fixed this. (4) for capitalization and italics of works, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. In brief: titles of operas go in italics, as do titles of musical works that are more than a single song. Song titles go in "quotation marks." DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Thank you for your comments and for moving the page. I was going to make the corrections, but the page is now gone! What to do? Mfrm123 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I searched for the article in Wikipedia generally, and it was there - thank you! I will work on your suggested corrections. Mfrm123 (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again[edit]

Hi DGG, an article improved at HaitiCROWD still has a pre-improvement banner that no longer applies. Can it be removed now?

  • Marie Vieux Chauvet Only had references that did not link to the text. We added citations but banner still says there are none.

Thanks! --Aliceba (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

when the banner no longer applies, it can be removed. I see you already did that. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I Gave it a try~and it worked. :-) Thanks again. --Aliceba (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedying prizes[edit]

I'd have thought a literary prize would fall under "organization [or] organized event", but fair enough. --McGeddon (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Lawrence Saunders[edit]

I am the author of William Lawrence Saunders. Another editor cut and pasted my article instead of using the move function. My article is here at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/William Lawrence Saunders. William Lawrence Saunders needs to be deleted to make room for User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/William Lawrence Saunders to be move there, using the move function. Cutting and pasting lost the edit history needed to attribute authorship. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiBullying[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiBullying. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to create a business stub for AVP Nationwide Productions[edit]

Greetings. You removed my article on AVP Nationwide Productions. I would like to create a stub for this company. Please let me know if that's OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzerb (talk • contribs) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Russell[edit]

I took a stab at improving the article you appear to have rescued recently from an abandoned AfC pile (if I'm understanding the history correctly). I don't understand why you removed the line about Russell's ancestry and connection to Yale, though. Did you review the sources and find it to be unsourced, or something? 70.24.4.51 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 70.24.4.51, I considered the m totally irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Gage[edit]

There's a draft at AfC, Draft:Randy Gage Author, which I'd like to approve. It should simply be titled Randy Gage, but that title is create protected. You were one of the admins who deleted the page in the past. What do I need to do to get it un-create protected? Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend extreme skepticism about articles concerning motivational speakers and authors, especially those who built their careers on multi-level marketing. Many of these people are experts at simulating notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, Cullen328 - I did not know that. Can one of you take a look at the draft then? I'll remove my comment until I hear from you. Also, would Nido Qubein also fall into that category? Thanks for your assistance. Onel5969 (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Nido Qubein is in a whole different category, Onel5969, since he is the president of an established, accredited university and a board member of a couple of major corporations. He does not need to "simulate notability". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you deleted was recreated[edit]

On March 21 you deleted Raju Menon. The article was recreated by a user account that was created after the deletion and is still, to some extent, promotional. Based on this information, the deletion reason may still apply and the user who made it this time may be a sock of the other. However, as someone who is not an administrator, I don't have the information that would be needed to check if the previous creator had any reason to make a sock (being blocked for example) or how similar the article is to the deleted version, which would indicate the creators were the same. PhantomTech (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

another admin dealt with it. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment RfC[edit]

Just a headsup that your apparent attempt to ping Risker in this edit will not have worked due to your typo. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

about this, "ping" only works if you have a fresh signature in the post. see [here, which says (to save you the click) "Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent. It must also be in the page text—-links in the edit summary do not create notifications." :) Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. Everything considered, Im not going to do anything further. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E Love Deletion[edit]

Thank you for your feedback on my article. I will try to improve my sourcing and my understanding of notability before attempting any other biographical submissions. On a high note, I learned a new term - sock puppetry. I hadn't heard that one before and I was a little confused by your initial comments. I understand the concerns now, however. Lemchuhalik (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:48, 23 March 2015 review of submission by 107.188.20.50[edit]


107.188.20.50 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


107.188.20.50 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Hello DGG, In what way can this be modified to not read like an advertisement. I am not advertising anything, just wanted to put information about him out there. He has written 5 self-help books and is about to roll out an educational program to aid students in their transition from high school to college. Please let me know how I can fix this submission to Wikipedia standards.[reply]

Thank You, Filomena Iolascon filomena@gilchristforum.com -->}}

What you are giving me is reasons why he wants publicity . WP does not do that. Even if his books were actually important, the article would still be totally unsatisfactory. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article indexed for deletion[edit]

Hi DGG, it was great seeing you yesterday. I am hoping you can help prevent the deletion of the below article which was created during AfroCROWD and which I am in the process of beefing up. Thanks!

--Aliceba (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented. The discussion will have to run its course for the 7 days. I expect it will be kept, but additional references will help further. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring a deleted article debate[edit]

Prior AfD resulted in delete, but as far as I can tell the article-subject is notable and a proper article can be written[4]

Is it proper to merely boldly write the page or is there some discussion-building process that needs to be followed? CorporateM (Talk) 22:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commented there DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melany Barnes[edit]

O.K. I have tried to re prod it this time, with mentioning it in the edit summary. My main concern with it is that yes, perhaps she is notable, but in order to have a full stub the article should include education, date of birth (if available, etc). Saying Melany Barnes is a former Democratic member of the Kansas House of Representatives, who represented the 95th district. She replaced Tom Sawyer in the Fall of 2009 and served until 2011 when she lost her re-election bid to Republican Benny Boman. is not good enough. Where are the refs that can prove it? Since its a BLP we as editors should be careful not to put libelous information without verification. If I am wrong with the above statement, do feel free to correct me, but as it stands, if it wont meet deletion, then it should be merged.--Mishae (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it certainly needs more information, but stubs a permitted, as longs there is information to indicate notability and a source for verification.I see nothing even potentially libelous here. That she is a Democrat? That she won an election? That she failed re-election? DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence need an additional reference, not just an external link, don't you think?--Mishae (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions the person who did win, so that's should be easy enough for you to do--and I see someone else just did it. I am puzzled about your attempts to delete this page, considering the excellent work you have been doing on pages for other legislators. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since someone already edited it, I have no complains. I just saw this edit when I went to the library this morning, and already sent a Thank you to that editor. I had an issue to find the source and for the sake of it, a prod was legit. However, perhaps a ref improve template would have been much better. Keep in mind, I don't prod a lot of articles, and I don't prod because I don't like something. I however do prod them if there is no refs other then external links, which after 2010 should mandatory. Either way, I was wrong in doing so, and I think I should get back to what I do best: write articles, add dates and accessdates, and archive ones which are dead.--Mishae (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, isolated example. Sorry if I seem to have made an issue out of it. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Claire[edit]

DGG can you please help me - I am not trying to promote a business - I am trying to start a page for Camp Claire and Hamburg Cove, two places that are noteworthy and deserve to be wikified. How can I stop my page(s) from being deleted? thank you for any help you can give. Campclaire (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on some details on your user talk page, but in general you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. In practice this has been rather difficult form oat camps. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In need of advice[edit]

I am in need of advice from an administrator. I am currently participating in a request move discussion. One of the editors cites Wikipedia policies that, I think, are misapplied or misunderstood. Or, perhaps, I am the editor that cites Wikipedia policies that are misapplied or misunderstood.

I am not sure how to handle these conflicting interpretations of Wikipedia policies. Do or will an admin examine discussions for faulty use of Wikipedia policies to ensure that all participants in the discussion properly understand them and adhere to them - particularly the Wikipedia:Core content policies - like a referee?

I am seeking a way for the request move discussion to continue in its current forum, but with someone with experience and credentials to evaluate points of policy and to explicitly declare when a policy has been misapplied or applied correctly. I think the discussion I am participating in has the potential to devolve into a formal complaint - largely with a single editor. I am trying to avoid that scenario.

Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The application of all WP policies is decided by consensus, and thus a certain degree of variability is to be expected. In this particular instance, the question is apparently whether African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) should be moved to Civil Rights Movement. I'm not going to pas judgement on this; no one person decides these things. But I suggest you reconsider whether this move would display too much of an US perspective: WP is international. A reasonable case could probably be made for the move, or against it. My advice here has always been to concentrate on improving page content and not worry too much about page titles. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the claim, "The application of all WP policies is decided by consensus" a contradiction to the statement, "The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus" from the lede paragraph of Wikipedia:Core content policies that describes the "three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.". Thank you for responding. Mitchumch (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental principles are not affected, but the application of them is always subject to consensus. Each of the individual policies has extensive talk pages discussing the proper application of them, as every single key word in them is ambiguous to some extent and the exact meaning of every one of them has been disputed . Tens hundreds of thousands of individual applications have been discussed on various WP and article talk pages. If there is disagreement on how to apply a policy, only consensus can resolve it. (And it isn't clear at all that your argument falls under any of the three policies, listed) We have no dictators; even arb com cannot decide on content. This particular question should be discussed at the proper place, and I'm not going to get involved int that discussion. If consensus holds against you, you will need to accept it, because that's the way we work here. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for your advice. I appreciate that you took the time to answer my request. Mitchumch (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victor Brombert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guggenheim Foundation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About your deletion of item "ALDAG"[edit]

Response & Information about your deletion of "ALDAG"

First of all; nice to meet you. I am a member of wiki for many years but I added for the first time an item. I am new about this action. Sometimes in the past; I thought that I should add some items but I haven't done it. Because the info/item should have a value. This was the first time.

I am disappointed about your way of thinking, what I have done and what you have done to my item. It could be more kind way to ask for an explanation from me.

1.The company ALDAG; which I added, is a company founded in 1967 and ALDAG is the first 100% Turkish owned refrigerator manufacturer in Turkey. Still owned 100% by a Turkish investor but the core business changed throughout the time to HVAC. Half a century of life and to be well known for companies are very valuable and important properties.

2.ALDAG was born from the mother company which is also in the encyclopedia as the holding nowadays. I will not declare the name.

3.I did not put any e mail address, any individual/owner names or any individual info to use wiki as an advertisement platform. ALDAG is growing each day and does not need Wiki as an ad platform.

4.I did not insert any logo, product data, additionally inserted reference links (Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Istanbul (Metropolitan city)) and the official web site of the company, like all other companies listed in Wiki.

5.I also noticed that even the names of some companies are there in Wiki, which do not have even a speciality/distinctive property. I will also not declare their names.

Sorry; But your behaviour "deleting the item directly", which I added, with a message of an other user, without questioning, is not fair. You could/should ask for an explanation before judging. Thank you. Mrstay (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above is evidence that it is important in an encyclopedic sense. The article only made the claim " One of the first industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturer of Turkey until mid of 1980s. " I don't think first 100% Turkish-owned is going to be notable, but it is would be some indication of possible importance. If you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements about the company,and that prove the claim, you might want to try again. There are several hundred thousand of articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your edit of Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art[edit]

I consider your deletion of exhibition sections, marking it as "inappropriate content, as almost all the artists are not notable" is not appropriate action itself. The museum is an international venue, not private, but a state funded, hence it chooses only notable artists to be exhibited in it's walls. Many of the artists you removed from the section are renowned and has their own wiki pages. Hence, I'd like to inform you that I am going to reinstate the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthistorian1977 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps it would be acceptable to add it back, including only the artists who are notable enough to have articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some artists are notable enough without having wiki articles. And this is the beauty of Wikipedia, that we have time and means to create an articles for them. My assumption that if an Artist is chosen to be exhibited in Museum, he or she are notable enough to be included into article about this specific museum and I am slowly creating articles about those artists as well. Please, note, most of the artists are from small European, African or Asian countries and hence they don't have English articles. So, I think it still worth to mention them. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That they were included in a exhibitions not enough evidence of that.the standard practice is to include only those with articles or clear referenced evidence of being clearly qualified. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the art world, being included into Museum Exhibition is the sign of notability. So, I suggest to leave them in the article, since the article is about Museum and not specific artists. Those who have english wiki pages, will have the hyperlink and those who do not, will not, which is in time will be fixed with having a hyperlink. Still, all of them have dozens of reference in the Internet, which will be filled in time in the article. If you still not agree with this approach, I can mark the article as a stub, showing that it's still being work in progress. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at Wikipedia. See WP:CREATIVE. It's being included in permanent collections, or being the subject of substance critical work. Some of your articles do, quite appropriately, assert permanent collections, but in each case you need to prove it--if at all possible, from the museum's web site or a comparable third party source. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glimpses: A Collection of Nightrunner Short Stories[edit]

All books from the Nightrunner series of Lynn Flewelling have it's own wiki page. Why do you think this one does not deserve it's own page? Regards Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the other articles are unjustified, being violations of NOT PLOT. This one does;t even have the merit of describing the plot of the stories. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will mark is as a stub until someone else or myself will have time to describe the plot. Still, many other new articles are being work in progress. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you it takes more than a discussion of plot. Ususlaly the best addition is a section on critical reception. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DGG. You have new messages at VS6507's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VS6507 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COIN discussion, related to an AfC that you approved[edit]

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Scholars_who_appear_to_be_anonymously_self-promoting... Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Haiti[edit]

You are invited to join WikiProject Haiti, an outreach effort which aims to support development of Haiti related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. If you'd like to join, please sign up here. L'union fait la force! Thanks!

Hi DGG, I saw your participation in the "Meetup/NYC/AfroCrowd/HaitiCROWD" and thought I'd extend the invite to a completely revamped WikiProject Haiti. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed to monitor Sweet Briar College, please[edit]

Hi, I'm putting the word out to (you and) your Talk page stalkers that help is needed to monitor the wave of brand new WP:SPA editors and IPs that are making either possibly promotional or clueless edits to the article. Due to the college's sudden pending closure, alumnae are out in force changing stuff in the article. While some edits have been decent, they are mixed in with a dose of promotionalism and wiki-cluelessness that is becoming exhausting to monitor. Any help appreciated. Softlavender (talk)

will do. thanks for the reminder DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email[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.

 sami  talk 14:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Pluralsight[edit]

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Pluralsight, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has good referencing, a cleanup would be enough for removing the promotional tone. Thank you. SD0001 (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Paytm[edit]

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Paytm, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because I have now established notability through a few further reading links. Thank you. SD0001 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i am new for article creation. Just help on how to fix the issues instead of deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.11.121 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough there now to prevent speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chitra group of institutions[edit]

sir/madam the work in website is going on and it will be finished as soon as possible, then all the images of various schools will be uploaded. I request you sir to kindly just wait for some time please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsachan12 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(This is relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitra Group of Institutions--its website is well worth seeing). Sagarsachan12, perhaps you should wait unit there are not merely pictures of the campus, but some references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, thank you for a good laugh on a grey day. I particularly like this page. Now I know where to apply when I want a degree in Lorem ipsum. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of previously speedly deleted article by company representative .[edit]

Hi DGG, 3 hours you speedily deleted an article on a company LinkstreetLearning, the article has been recreated with some new reference to support its notability claim but the article appears to be created by a company employee working as a Marketing Associate LinkedIn account of the empolyee and off course she lied about her identity on my talk page (i didnt ask). i just wanted to let you know that .thank you :)Nicky mathew (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is slightly better--at least the adjectives have been removed. Let me see if some other admin deletes it. I don't want to seem like I am pursuing someone. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG:Hi again, thank you for taking appropriate action.:) Nicky mathew (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC 0.9 not working for you?[edit]

Hi-- I've had to fix a few of your G13-saved submissions; Johannes Schöning, Jan Theuns, Harry Bickerton and Mary Stewart Doubleday Cutting. In those, even though you appear to have published the articles, the AfC templates weren't removed by the script. I'm not sure why this happened. Just letting you know. Origamiteⓣⓒ 05:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

probably because I move too fast & leave the page before the save is complete. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afrocrowd Inspire[edit]

Hi DGG, Was hoping to get your feedback or support on this Inspire Campaign Idea Lab proposal. Thanks in advance! --Aliceba (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag on TalkLocal- what should I know[edit]

Hi David,

I went to check out TalkLocal on Wikipedia after speaking to one of their sales representatives. I never sign with a company without checking wikipedia first. Anyway, the flag for deletion raised concerns for me, but other than that they seemed legitimate. May I ask why they were flagged? They have about as many sources listed as their competitors Porch and Thumbtack which aren’t flagged. So it seems like uneven treatment. Hoping to hear from you as I’m leaning towards signing up for the service, but don’t want to ignore any red flags.

Thanks,

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timlbiz (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Porch is 10 times the size; Thumbtack (website) over 30 times. They therefore have references which are more than press releases about initial funding. (Though those are also promotional, possibly enough so to be deleted also.) When I see an argument for a startup being notable because much larger firms in the field are notable, I conclude they are trying to use WP for publicity. WP does not do that.
I would strongly advise against using WP for advice about business decisions. The prevalent tone of at least half our articles on businesses is promotional, usually written by editors with a conflict of interest that prevents unbiased writing. We need to get rid of such articles, but it will take a while. because there are tens of thousands of articles that need to be removed one at a time after discussion. In the meanwhile, the last thing we want to do is to add more of them. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poribacteria[edit]

Hi DGG, you removed the G12 speedy tag from the article Poribacteria indicating that the text came from PLoS One. Although the link at the top of the article did indeed go to this PLos One paper, the one that was actually copied (with sections slightly rearranged) is this one from ISME Journal, published by Nature Publishing Group and available through PMC but not freely licensed. The topic is worthy of an article, but I'd hoped to get rid of the copied history before writing a new one. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually verify the text--sorry, I should have. My error. Thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YGM[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.

--Dweller (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your support needed for AfroCROWD Inspire campaign[edit]

Hi DGG, hoping you can add a comment in the Project Team section as an advisor or other role since you have already advised, trained and supported AfroCROWD: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Empowering_Afrodescendant_women_in_Wikipedia

Thanks in advance! --Aliceba (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_98_Mar._2015&oldid=1142555241"