User talk:DGG/Archive 99 Apr. 2015

ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD, Speedy & prod, NPP & AfC, COI & paid editors,    BLP,            Bilateral relations
Notability,   Universities & academic people, Schools, Academic journals, Books & other publications
Sourcing,    Fiction,       In Popular Culture    Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Recreation of previously speedy deleted article by company representative again :([edit]

Hi DGG, Another page with same issue came up but this is little more complicated. this is the article .global, please read this first Talk global and then my talk page to understand as can you seen that Another admin already reviewed and declined speedy deletion request and I am not presuming one anymore, I just want your opinion what to do about the matter. In my talk page I put forward a suggestion which is merging and creating a new article for all 1300 new extension made by ICANN and I believe giving an individual each domain extension will only serve as a promotional tool for these companies,we can do a better job by combined articles into one large well explained one through AfC process.what is your opinion?. sorry, if I am disturbing u, I believe this problem will occur again if not sorted out now.In future will try to avoid these conversations if it's not appropriate.thank you for your time :) Nicky mathew (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Nicky mathew in my view your comment on Talk:.global violates OUTING. I've removed it. DGG would you please revdel it, and my deletion of it? (if not I will email oversight - just let me know: Nicky's set of diffs is here and my deletion is here). I am sure it wasn't knowing/intentional Nicky and that you won't do that going forward. I work on COI issues a lot and we really need folks looking at articles being created, but also we need to be really careful of OUTING. I can show you examples (if you want) of how I approach editors who look like they have a COI without crossing that line. (I just approached the editor you are concerned about - see here) Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky mathew, I think Jytdog is right about this. I oversighted the content, which I now have the ability to do. We avoid discussing in public who the real life person is who created an article, and certainly talk pages are not an acceptable place to look at this. If you think the matter warrant a SPI, post there, but without giving individual names or links to their web sites. (Myself, I rather think it isn't worth the trouble in this case). DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the issue of whether such a a page is justifiable. the first place to discuss this is AfD; there may need to be a more general discussion somewhere DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Jytdog Thank you for your advice, I will avoid discussing in public who the real life person is who created an article.In AFD should i add those web links to show col of the creator ? i am writing my final exam in the coming days and i was trying to not edit or patrol new pages but in between this came up while checking watchiist before leaving. can i apply for AFD after 2 weeks or can you do it ?

please, please read WP:OUTING. You cannot try to find out the real life identity of any wikipedian, and you really cannot post information within Wikipedia about the real life identity of a wikipedian. DGG "oversighted" the mistake you made, meaning he obliterated it - it is gone forever. This is very sacred stuff, deep in the guts of Wikipedia, and you can get site banned for OUTING someone. Do not go there. Really. I understand you are busy now but if you like, when you get time i will (or maybe DGG will) tell you about how i (or he, in his case) spot possible conflicted editors and how i (or he) deal with them. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to realize that most people come to wikipedia with some degree of conflict of interest, to write topics about which the really care. The problem is not to keep the out, the problem is to see that what they do contributes positively to the encyclopedia. People who are firm believers in a cause , for example. can be great problems, because they care so much about something (hat may well be in fact really important) that they recent the writing of NPOV articles. Fans of an artist or sports team can be problems also, inserting all sorts of unjustified material in their praise, worse than a publicist would dare even try. Even for products or companies, there are great fans who want everyone to share the POV--those fixated on particular brand of camera or computer or automobile, or on a restaurant or type of clothing, of great believers in the wonderful work of a doctor or financial advisor or charity.

But the problem here is the people with a commercial interest. The come in all sorts: the owner of a business or professional practice; the press agent in a company, and the persona with a small or moderate knowledge of Wikipedia who advertises their services, or now especially those freelancers who answer advertisements on elance and similar websites, Most of these people do not know how to make a decent article even if they wanted to; but few of them want to--they or their clients will not be satisfied by a NPOV articles in proportion to the size of their business with adequate references--they want a web page here, not seeing us a s different fro mother places for posting advertisements. they do not care about our notability requirements--they all at least hope to be notable some day,and want the public to know about them. I and several others have estimated that at least half our article on commercial and noncommercial organizations and their leaders are the products of this kind of editing. t this point WP is so well known ,that it is hard to imagine an organization anywhere that would not want to have a WP page, and it takes a true understanding of the way in which WP is different, to realize that this is not he way to achieve that.

There is thus no reason to get angry at particular instances. The critical thing to do is to remove the pov articles; assuming we have half million, and if a hundred of us set out to do it for an hot a day, , and supported each other , we could mange to keep up with the inflow and clear up the background in a year or two. We did it for unreferenced bios of living people; we can do it here. If this seems unrealistic, for what is possibly the highest-priority category in terms of unjustified advertising, internet businesses, 4 or 5 people could do it.

In the meantime, we do have to pursue the chains of paid editor, who are responsible for perhaps 10 to 30% of the problem. It's not worth the trouble to work on an individual example. What is worth the double is to look for a group of accounts writing articles in identical format in a particular subject, or an individual account using a similar format for miscellaneous totally unrelated minor articles. In the first place, if the writing similarities are close enough , a SPI can be justify.d In the second, a firm explanation can usually stope them. More of the similarities to be looked for will follow in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here is an example that is very, very likely one these throw-away sock accounts, used by a paid editor: [1]. I agree, that the key thing is to identify the network and get them all blocked as socks. Others, for example Doc James, have been trying to work with elance directly to get them to delist accounts that are doing undisclosed paid editing. we need for folks helping for sure Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, is that "half" an impression thing, or is there some data behind that? I've asked about data on paid editing, and at that time, there were rough guesses at best... Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'

That "half" as "at last half", a deliberately conservative understatement. (based on impressions--one of the things we necessarily lose with anonymous editing is the ability to collect data.) DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha. i always ask when people make those claims.... Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog thank you guys for helping and guiding me, I really appreciate that and I am taking your WP OUTING very seriously. I worked on some col cases and I believe I handled those cases very well without violating any Wikipedia guidelines even though I was not aware of WP:OUTING. I usually kept my distance when dealing with such cases and never asked them to reveal any personal information other than their affiliation with the entity without asking any further explanation about their nature of work or name. I major in marketing and I can easily spot when someone is trying to promote something and I strongly stand against advertisement in Wikipedia.

we have to take advertisement in Wikipedia more seriously, some marketing courses are now teaching how to edit Wikipedia to promote companies coz they see it as important channel for public relations and product promotion, the only reason why we don't see well-written articles about these companies from new editors is becoz of their inability to navigate through Wikipedia and old web Wikipedia editor is still confusing for most of the people,as Wikipedia becomes more and more user friendly with addition such as visual editor, we will see more advertisement and vandalism .There are off course positive sides to these improvements but we should also focus on negative side too. Nicky mathew (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professional press release writers can and do learn html and the very similar wikicode, and even our peculiar referencing conventions.Their see of expected skills encompasses that. What they have much more difficult in learning is now to write in a different style for different purpose. Their training and experience is in how to write effective press releases and advertisements,and they are lost in an environment which does not accept their well-learned glossy promises, convincing rhetoric, appealing personal claims, vague statement of benefits ,and carefully selected statistics.claims is not wanted, Tbey do not have experience writing where plain neutral presentation is w\excpected, where only a set of narrowly defined reliable sources are accepted, where testimonials and name-dropping are harmful, and where extravert claims are signs of puffery. The best preparation for working in WP is journalism, tho teaching and librarianship and technical writing also do well. can also be successful

So of course , is any intelligent member of the general public-- but unlike professionals, unless the are students who know html, they have great difficulty with our current format. it is these people whom we will be able to better reach when we have a rule workignand non confusing wvisual editor that does not require manual post processing to verify that it; has avoided bloopers. Perhaps we'll get there they year (I seem to remember saying that for several years now.)At theta point, our outreach programs can extent more practically to a much wider range of non traditional editors, many of whom maybe interested in the everyday topics we have such trouble with. and those they may be able to drive out the professionals DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Military history of Buddhist Americans#Requested move 2 April 2015[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Military history of Buddhist Americans#Requested move 2 April 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw[edit]

I was reading your page on a mobile (or trying to). Is there something wrong with the archiving? It looks at the top of the page like you're up to date with archiving but ... <ahem> --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Hypocrite here is off to archive his own talk page now --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the posts at the top of DGG's talk page to be the most valuable talk page content on Wikipedia. I assume that the content remains there because others have told him so! — Neonorange (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)::Yes, I do keep the material at the top deliberately. But I'm behind on archiving. I should get back to normal in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies 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/Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies 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. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Pass -- G11 deleted --[edit]

Good Afternoon, mr. DGG. You have deleted the "Moscow Pass" page. Unfortunately, I could not answer to you earlier. I want to create a similar page, because i'm sure it should be on wikipedia. We had a lot of calls from different international tourists with many questions like "How it works?" or "What is it?", so that's the reason to create such article in the WP. Just to let them know what is it and how it works. I think it is fair to the people. I thought about your decision and hope to find your hand in this situation. I want to change information on this page to make it more neutral, to make it not promotional, but more encyclopedic. I will create it like a draft in my userspace and send to you. I hope you will show me my mistakes and I will be glad to fix it.

With respect, Rybnikov Eugene.

This is a new version of page. I think, now it is correct formulated and can be added to Wikipedia articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%D0%95%D0%B2%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%A0%D1%8B%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2/Moscow_Pass

Please check it. Waiting for your comment. Hope to add it to the articles soon.

With respect, Rybnikov Eugene.

Go ahead, I see we have a similar page for London Pass. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, mr. DGG. Again sorry for a long silence. I've done some changes in my page. Now, actualy, I think the main diference between my page and London pass is a picture of a plastic card. But like in any encyclopedia, we can use a picture of an object, which an article describes. I think we can use this picture here too. I hope that I'm getting closer to your approval of Moscow Pass page. I really think it is nessesary to create it for people (first of all for tourists and travelers) convenience. New article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Moscow_Pass&redirect=no

With respect, Rybnikov Eugene.

Notability[edit]

Of course you can point out that the argument may benefit me, but I don't think increasing notability requirements is the right way to go. Well, if I had my way, I would consolidate all of them into a single notability guideline of just a few paragraphs, rather than creating unique guidelines for different subject areas. The myriad of guidelines for different subject areas tend to reflect the biases of the community, setting a low bar for reporters, authors and academics, and a higher one for org's and business executives. I rolled my eyes at the reaction when I tried to delete an over-the-top promotional page about an open-source project.

But in any case, what I would suggest is instead that the burden of proof for notability be shifted to the submitter. Right now the AfD nominator is expected to investigate the article-subject's notability before nominating. The burden is that evidence of notability exists, somewhere out in the world, which means tons of research to delete every spammy article about a trivial org. Instead, the requirement should be that the article itself contain evidence of notability and that it be deleted if evidence is not provided in the article, shifting the burden of validating notability to the author, rather than the community. CorporateM (Talk) 20:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basic WP:GNG guideline is the same for most types of reticules, the way it is applied is what varies widely, and it is those differences in appliation which reflects the biases of the community. That's all that I am suggesting: that in dealing with commercial organizations especially we interpret the term reliable sources to not include sources which are dependent on PR. (sources that are straight PR are of course excluded from all areas). I'm not even proposing this as a formal guideline at this point, but I intend to argue at individual cases that some sources, such as local business journals, or reports on funding, be disregarded for showing notability.

Most of the special guidelines are attempts to correct bias, not increase it further: the Athletes guideline, for example, is a way to limit what would otherwise be the overcoverage of college and high school athletes. WP:PROF is away to limit what would otherwise be the great undercoverage of researchers.

What I am suggesting is merely an empirical adjustment in interpretation, not a fundamental revision. My view on how I would truly like to go is entirely opposite to yours: I would eliminate the GNG entirely as too dependent upon interpretation have have guidelines for subjects which truly reflect what is of encyclopedic importance. I am not suggesting this, for the general feeling is opposed to it. (and in practice, it would immediately create a immense number of arguments in particular areas--the virtue is that once it were settled, it would decrease them.)

Establishing the burden of notability is already on the contributors to the article in practice: we almost always do decline articles where nobody can find sources showing notability, except for the correction of parts of the world or topics where this is accepted as particularly difficult. Establishing the rule you suggest would increase our already strongly existing cultural bias. It would also be opposed to the basic principle of WP by which non experts work together to gradually develop articles, by requiring an article be sufficiently well established immediately. It would prevent the formation of articles on many topic areas, including most historical topics except by those with access to research libraries. It would also immensely bias WP in exactly the wrong direction: towards news events, internet phenomena, popular artists, and minor sports figures. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... - I do not have experience in areas like sports figures, so I am not privy to the circumstances unique to the subject area. I've heard that the German Wikipedia does have revenue requirements for companies to qualify. I think there would be more support for it than you would think. However, I would do something more along the lines of making the assumption that an org is not notable if they are below a certain funding/revenue threshold, allowing for exceptions when there are reliable sources to justify it - as oppose to a hard and fast rule. CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about revenue requirements. These depends a great deal upon the part of the world and the industry. The deWP deals with a more homogeneous range of topics than we do. They have been mentioned sometimes in afd discussions for financial companies , for example to explain that under $1billion of assets managed is not a big deal. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion that may interest you[edit]

here Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable sources?[edit]

I have some problems with User: Rhode_Island_Red concerning art historical subjects. He admits that he has no knowledge of art historical matters, but constantly places superfluous tags on article pages I have created, questioning the reliability of my sources. See, for instance, [2], [3], [4], [5]). See also [6] and [7]. User Dr. Blofeld recommended asking you what to do. The problem is that the activities of this user haven't changed much for years. Just some examples: Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/August, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2012/September, Talk:HA_Schult/Archives/2013/April, and Talk:Gotthard_Graubner. Do you have an idea how to handle this case? Wikiwiserick (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he adds an absurd notability tag again, let me do the revert. Otherwise this will get too personal. I can't figure this out, because he has done some good work also. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said anything that even remotely resembles admitting that I have "no knowledge of art historical matters". The tags are not superfluous and I've explained very clearly why they were added. No user by the name of "Dr. Blofeld" ever left a comment on my Talk page -- this was Wikiwiserick masquerading as another user[8] -- a clear case of WP:SOCK. Some pretty serious user conduct violations taking place here on Wikiwiserick's part. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's not really a good idea to make sockpuppet accusations without evidence, especially when the people involved are long established wikipedians with excellent reputations, and the only basis for it is they both think some of your tagging is totally inappropriate. I think so also. You really need to read WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE, and understand the basic standards. And then examine the long archive of discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RSN. It doesn't matter whether or not you know art history; it does matter whether or not you know what WP means by notability and RS. You made a valuable contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmut Diez. There are enough truly problematic articles to tag and delete and questionable sources, without having to deal with what actually is high quality academic content. We need more of it, and shouldn't discourage the relatively few experts who are prepared to content with the interface and the attitudes. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently another user adding tags to multiple articles. See, for instance, Warburg Haus, Hamburg and [9]. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

advice has been given by several people. If more is needed, it will be done. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive?[edit]

Ottawahitech (talk · contribs) has drawn my attention to the size of this page. You have a variety of archives for it so why on earth do you need to keep threads dating back to 2011? OK, disk space is cheap these days but it still seems a waste of resources for every edit to gobble up 300k bytes on Wikipedia's servers. More importantly, please spare a thought for users with slow connections, mobile devices or creaky old browsers - why should they have to deal with such a ridiculously large page? I tried to add this message on my tablet PC and it crashed the browser. WP:TALKCOND suggests a maximum size of 75k bytes. My personal limit is 65,536 bytes.

You might like to add to this page a query box to search your archives - specimen code. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing it this way ever since I joined 8 years ago. I try to keep it to 200K. My principle is to retain material which is still of current interest or importance, even if the discussion was older. It's a little longer than my desirable size now, but I intend to remedy that: some of the AfC material is now of subsidiary interest. I have been told many times how useful the material here is--though I have a considerably larger amount of responses I think worth saving in my thematic archives (listed at the top of the page), people here as everywhere tend to just read what is in front of them. A query box,as you suggest, might be a good idea. I've thought about it for a while, but perhaps it is time I implemented it--thanks for the code to start out with.

more fundamentally, but not something I personally have any skill in dealing with, the problem of an interface suitable both for ordinary computers and hand-held devices is formidable. The Foundation seems to be making limited slow progress for articles, but talk space will be a harder problem. I admit I do have a bias, as I never use my iphone unless compelled to by circumstances, and I've always used the largest available screens on the desktop, with as much memory as I can afford or as fits in the computer. What might help as workaround for handheld devices is if someone could figure out some optional way to display just the table of contents, and link it to the text sections. As I've said, I'm no expert, but it should't be beyond the reach of javascript and css. Did adding this message crash your browser when you used the add new section tab? DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blackall and Yaraka Branch Railways[edit]

I assume you didn't mean publish Blackall and Yaraka Branch Railways to the Main space? JMHamo (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there's a printed source given. I can't see it, but we should assume good faith that it does cover the material. Checking for copypaste would however require actually locating it. If an article has about at least 60% chance of passing afd, I think it should go in mainspace. Or did I miss something obviously fishy? DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs clean-up, categories, more wikilinks etc, just messy. JMHamo (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it does. As you know, there are several schools of thought: one is to get everything right before moving to mainspace; a second is to at least get them cleaned up to a reasonable extent extent before putting them in mainspace, the third is to put them in as soon as they have a decent chance of passing afd. I started out at the first, but then moved to an second, and am now close to the third. The part that takes experience is deciding if there is the basis of a sustainable article, & I try to look at that for as many AfCs as possible. I admit, tho, that this rougher than even my usual standard: I usually at least add article sections; tho adding links is a good exercise for beginners, I usually add enough basic ones to at least give the impression of a WP article. (But there are a great many people who like to add categories. I learned early on that the best thing for me to do about categories, was to let them do it.) I was going too fast here, and you were right to call me on it. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

I subscribe to the get to as near perfection as possible before moving it from Draft school of thought. All too often the article is not found again (especially is there are no categories) and remains indefinitely in a bad state. A bad first impression for any reader coming across it. JMHamo (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my style is the experience that slow as it may be to get material improved in mainspace, it is even slower and less likely in Draft. As I understand it, the likelihood of survival in mainspace is the only actual guideline. It's good to do more, and each of us will balance whether we want to work in concentrated way with a small number of articles, or as a preliminary rescue of many. I've always done mostly rescue, with a few each week taken beyond that. I didn't expect it, but I find I like to work at the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An academic with problems at Draft[edit]

Hallo DGG, as an expert on academics and AfC you might like to cast an eye over Draft:Satwant Singh Dhaliwal - its originating editor sounds very unhappy at User_talk:Pigsonthewing#What_Do_You_Do_When_You_Know_Someone_Is_Notable_But.... PamD 10:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for picking this one up. I hope you achieve both the knocking it into shape and the acceptance. I say 'hope', but I have no doubt that you will. I had been tempted to accept it as it stood after CM's pruning in the hope that the community would make the relevant improvements that seemed to be unavailable in Draft: namespace. I know, now, to think of you when it comes to articles in the academic field that need help. Fiddle Faddle 07:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't always succeed in getting the community to accept them, but I know how to present them as well as the situation fairly justifies, and then stand aside and let the consensus decide what to do with it. Many articles we delete could possibly be rescued with enough knowledgable work, because we are reasonably enough much more prone to delete an over-blown or inadequate article. That's one of the reason to discourage coi editors, because they do not know how to write a proper article for an encyclopedia, even if they have the objectivity to desire to actually do so. Their experience is in writing for altogether different purposes. What they ought to do here, of course, is to stay away. or just call our attention to things we overlook. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

Jennifer Macdonald[edit]

I must of not saw them at the time-okay thanks. Wgolf (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Is there any way my drafts can be checked before I put them up becuase I'm sick of my pages getting taken down. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wackslas, write them in draft space , using the WP:Article Wizard. Make sure you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements or youtube. Local newspapers have a only limited reliability in stories about local personalities, because they tend to publish indiscriminately. n See WP:BIO for more details. Write in a neutral tone, not praising the subject. Don't write about yourself or your friends. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wackslas - Holler at me -- WP is always a hit and miss when it comes to making changes and it is very frustrating. All you can do is keep on trying. I have never published an article on my own and have had edits rejected as "vandalism" for something as small as a misplaced letter. Realize that participation in WP is motivated for whatever reason you can think so how people react is just as variable and sometimes, regrettably, over-zealous and at time disrespectable. But put on the thick skin and persevere; these types of people will never go away.66.74.176.59 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaygan Kheradpir[edit]

Do you mind providing a second opinion here? CorporateM (Talk) 15:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ober Da Bakod 2[edit]

It seems on the face of the notation that possible deletion of the article is rather ridiculous if that is the purpose of the edit summary. Especially for people in the US where there is a significant population of people from the Philippines people need to know more about non-British/American things. The only way that this will happen is if there are more articles for people to stumble upon just as people stumble upon articles of their own society.66.74.176.59 (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who prevented the deletion of the article. But it must have references in addition to IMdB or it will surely be soon deleted. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:History of economic thought[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of economic thought. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Talkback[edit]

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Così (restaurant).
Message added 11:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request to revisit the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Waggon Train[edit]

Hi. Could you take a quick look at this article I recently passed at AfC? My gut feeling (and that's all it is) is it looks like a copyvio from a book source, but the usual scripts don't report any online violations and I don't have the offline source to prove anything. I could copyedit the entire article from top to bottom, but I'd be uncomfortable doing that without more than the cursory knowledge of the topic I currently have. The username "rwteditor" suggests they might be affiliated with the National Army Museum which has an exhibition of the Royal Waggon train - again, can't prove anything. How might we proceed? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, it's clearly based on the book that is listed as the first source. (the tell-tale was the unusual phrasing "was awarded the battle honour – PENINSULA" which is also found in the GBooks-visible portion.) But except for short phrases like that, it's a summary, not a copyvio. It could use editing anyway--the article here goes into too much background on well-known historical events that would just need a link. (the book goes into similar explanations of the general background, but for a full length book, it's much more acceptable to do that, especially for a non-professional audience) usual to do that). Ritchie333 your first though that it would best be thoroly edited seems ideal to me. It looks like an important topic, and the MILHIS people should be able to find addition refs. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article post-protect[edit]

Hi DGG. This is in regards to Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation‎, which was deleted several times, most recently by yourself and protected for a month. It has just been recently created again; I cannot see the previous revs of course to determine how similar it is to the prior ones, so I bring it to your attention for evaluation. Related links of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milstein Family Foundation where it was deleted, and Draft:Milstein Family Foundation where the content was "draftified" to allow further work. Crow^Caw 21:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated in for speedy G11 as unambiguous advertising for their causes. As for notability, there are sufficient citation that it would need a new AfD. (And, FWIW, I do not think it shows a constructive approach when people rename in order to avoid needing to ask for approval. If another admin agrees on speedy deletion, I will protect this title also.) DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is another article, Adam Milstein, which seems to have week sourcing/notability as well. I wonder if it is an oversight that that article has not been nominated for deletion or if the article subject has been considered more notable than the organization? Iselilja (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider him notable. (it is even possible the Foundation is separately notable, but I usually support covering family foundations (unless famous) at the article on the person --where it fact it is covered.) Once the article on the foundation is deleted, I will place a protected redirect. There's lots of promotionalism to be removed, which I am about to do. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the speedy was declined; I am trying to decide whether to rewrite of use afd. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Gesundheit! Institute[edit]

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gesundheit! Institute, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: FOunded by a notable person, and subject of a successful movie is a credible assertion of importance enough for A7. Take it to AfD if you really think it should be deleted. Thank you. Ged UK 13:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ged UK You're right-- I had not noticed the movie. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your post on my talk page[edit]

Dear Mr. Goodman
I am currently an intern at KPMB architects until April 24th and it was my initiative to create the articles when I saw the wikiD invite http://architexx.org/women-wikipedia-design-wikid/#.VSbT6vnF_uM and the fact that the partners in the office were leading an initiative about women in architecture at Ryerson and UofT at the same time http://www.daniels.utoronto.ca/events/lecture/2015-03-07/women-architecture and coinciding with International Women's Day. Neither Shirley Blumberg nor Marianne McKenna had been profiled by Wikipedia although they are both among the leading Canadian women architects. KPMB then encouraged me to also update Bruce Kuwabara’s page as it was in need of an update. KPMB and myself take full responsibility and apologize for the conflict of interest. I would appreciate your kind offer to help me undergo the Articles for Creation process. Bronwyn Colford (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Colford. OK, now put that statement of being an intern on your user page, and state your coi in the summary of article drafts. It is often difficult to separate notability for an architect and their firm; the best way of clarifying this is by finding references discussing the work of the particular individual or prizes at a national level they have been awarded as individuals. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion for Ota Fine Arts wikipedia page[edit]

Hi DGG. I am writing in to enquire on the recent speedy deletion of Ota Fine Arts wikipedia page. Do let me know what is the reason behind it. Thanks!

It's basically an advertisement for a commercial gallery. The only sources are mentions in two general articles about the Tokyo fine arts scence. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

floating a balloon for COI disclosure at account creation or AfC[edit]

see here. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new reference tool[edit]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C Ravichandran[edit]

Hi! I'm attempting to get up to speed at RPP, and help out with their backlog. I hopefully understand CSD#7 now. However, I noticed you removed the CSD tag from C Ravichandran, and was wondering if I had applied it incorrectly there as well? Please let me know, I am attempting to figure out how to do things properly. Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

asserts authorship of books; asserts being a professor. This may or may not be notable, but each of them is an indication of plausible importance which is I think of as meaning that someone might reasonably think it worth an article. (The problem will be finding sources, which are extremely difficult in this area.) DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 11 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Andrew Pike page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a Video?[edit]

Thank you for considering adding my article on Paluzzi.

Now to a question. There is an excellent Video of Paluzzi working in his studio. Why was it deleted from my article? It is at: https:vimeo.com/63455221

Why can't it be in the article as:

Video of Paluzzi working in his studio[edit]

https:vimeo.com/63455221

All the best, SirSwindon

Sirswindon (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DCM for information about our licensing requirements . DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the material regarding licensing and this https:vimeo.com/63455221 is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Anyone in the world may copy the http and send it to anyone in the world to view it. So should I just put it in External Links?

Sirswindon (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:21:38, 12 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Tomwaddington[edit]

Tomwaddington (talk · contribs)
- User:Tomwaddington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey DGG,

I'm hoping to get some assistance on getting Draft:Cut Out + Keep published. You note 'everything here is essentially a press release'. I'm hoping that providing evidence of an established site, with significant readership, and a book released by a large publisher would be a good reason it should be in an encyclopedia. Is there any further feedback you could provide on why this isn't a valid submission?

Thanks!

Tomwaddington (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to WorldCat, the book is in only 5 libraries. [10]. Of course, it has just been published this year. If the book becomes sgnificant enough for reviews, especially reviews in magazines of newspapers of general interest, it would mean a lot more. We go here primarily by references in showing notability: See WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Another article like the one form the Dailey Mail would also help very much. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back so quick. I'm surprised WorldCat only shows 5 copies. As a quick check, New York Public Library has 6 copies^[1], Baltimore County Public Library has another 15^[2]. Does that help the notability somewhat? I'll work on some additional references!

11:29:03, 12 April 2015 review of submission by Abhyud[edit]

Abhyud (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Wisdom Jobs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for the feedback. I have already added third party reliable resources. None of them are press releases or announcements.Also I have seen that same resources are used in Naukri.com but this article has been approved. Please explain. AB (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion?[edit]

A recent edit reminded me of an old discussion on Talk:Caspar David Friedrich. One or two other users, among them Rhode Island Red, have removed my short references to HA Schult and Gotthard Graubner (see [11]) from the Caspar David Friedrich page, simply because they were of the opinion that these are minor artists not worth mentioning in the featured Caspar David Friedrich article, although the work of these important German artists is clearly inspired by Friedrich, as several independent sources say. To my mind, linking is an important feature of Wikipedia, binding the project together into an interconnected whole, as connections to related subjects of other articles are always useful, and these were just two additional links that were well sourced. What is your opinion concerning this case? Wikiwiserick (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAs go by their own standards, and i keep out of it. My advice is nt to concern yourself about relatively minor things like this, but concentrate on writing articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Huston[edit]

I just created this page, and went to create its Talk page. The Talk page said you deleted this Talk page previously (as the Talk page of a previously deleted article). I don't recall seeing the same warning when I created Roger Huston. I don't know what the previous page was about or why it was deleted, but the warning said I should check in with you first before proceeding. Choor monster (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and created the Talk page, since using "What links here", I found 2010 lists of articles created of interest to Iowa politics and the like, which is not this fellow. That, and it's certainly more important to get the BLP notice up than to avoid embarrassing myself. Choor monster (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choor monster, yes, it was a different person, an unelected Iowa politician. The current article should be fine. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove this article from drafts?[edit]

Hi DGG, one of the AfrolatinoCROWD goers today created an article for Duvalle, an important Garifuna leader, as a draft. I have enough info to make this article a very viable stub quickly. Can we remove it from drafts and make it a full fledged article? I can probably spiff it up by tomorrow. Thanks!

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DuValle Aliceba (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But, Aliceba, please check if it is DuValle or Duvalle. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the attitude[edit]

note the above title is not sarcasm this is gratitude admittedly badly worded from a sleepy brain

I just wanted to thank you for the attitude displayed at the arbcom case related to Quack Guru. If more admins were of the opinion that an editor who is clearly going to become a problem, needs a smack about the head with a wet fish before they become a problem I think we'd have better editor retention in this community. SPACKlick (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More exactly, iI did not say "an editor who is going to become problem", but a situation which is going to become a problem". and also I did not even say that, but rather a situation which is already a problem and is going to become a worse problem". I have no presuppositions with respect to any particular editor at this point, and we can't deal with everything that is a potential problem, because that's too large a part of Wikipedia. but it's clear there is already a problem and it does not look like it is on its way to solution.

08:54:29, 13 April 2015 review of submission by Jmdby[edit]

Jmdby (talk · contribs)
- Draft:MR PORTER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, which section(s) would you recommend revising? I have edited all of them and am not sure which part sounds promotional now. Thanks. Jmdby (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive refs to your own site, the name dropping of people who have worn your clothes, the line at the end about your plans. . And , as I said, I suggest it would do better as part of the article on the parent company. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09:36:35, 13 April 2015 review of submission by Abhyud[edit]

Abhyud (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Wisdom Jobs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

As per your feedback i have added more reliable resources to justify my article. Please review my article again.

AB (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor has written Draft:Lip Ink International. I'm not saying either article is totally unsalvageable but I think we are dealing with a paid editor. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ritchie333 I am not a paid editor. I have just started to contribute in Wikipedia.I am in learning phase and looking to help from Wiki experts.I still wants to know that why Naukri.com has approved but Wisdom Jobs has rejected.

"In the process of raising money" is not notability. Every reference is either a press releases, a slightly disguised press release,

FWIW, both articles use the company name in capital letters. . We do not do this. Both articles are sourced to the same sort of purely promotional articles, press releases, and mere notices. And it is not easy to imagine why a editor would just happen to take interest in two companies in totally different industries in opposite sides of the world. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, Thanks for your feedback. I have again gone through all the references but still i am not able to find out which reference(s) seem like a press release. All referred resources are highly authorized third party news websites and they are not only talking about fund raising but also talks about the company history, about the CEO,number of employees, revenue etc.^[3]^[4]^[5] I do agree that in Lip Ink International I added some press releases as a reference but I was not aware about that and after Editor's feedback I removed all press releases and improved article. I have written articles about two individuals and two companies and all these four are from different industries. Is there any guideline in Wikipedia that one editor can only writes about one industry? Please don't judge my work with Lip Ink international all the time. It discourage me and my effort.

(talk page stalker) I have just reviewed this piece and given a detailed analysis of the pseudo-references, which form 100% of the referencing. I concur with Ritchie333's thoughts towards paid editing, but I would not pay the invoice. Fiddle Faddle 06:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:35, 13 April 2015 Deleted AfC[edit]

Hi User:DGG

You recently tagged one of my AfCs Draft:Small Luxury Hotels of the World for 'speedy deletion' under G11. I worked on the page for more than 2 months and three admins have reviewed this and I was trying to improve it, taking into oconsideration every rule of wikipedia.

What I dont understand is how do you qualify it as advertising?. It was written in a neutral tone and everything promotional was removed. This is a big brand and a notable company in the global travel and hospitality industry so it definitely deserves to have a wikipedia page.

I'd appreciate it if you would decline the submission and let me improve it rather than delete it. Its a pity that the admins don't really care about new editors. If you really think you are doing a great job deleting pages then how are these two pages below, in the same industry, doing the same business not deleted yet. They look and sound a million times more advertising-like than the AfC you just deleted:

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (travel_guide) and The Leading Hotels of the World

Cheers!

Firdaushaque (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firdaushaqu, 3 different editors have now turned it down as a draft, I listed it for deletion , another admin. Jimfbleak deleted it.

the basic principle here is [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY], a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. The references are entirely to press releases, mere notices, of articles in travel magazines about individual hotels. It is possible that some of the individual hotels might be notable. The content about films or events or historical incidents at some of the hotels would belong in those articles.

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. Mr. & Mrs. Smith (travel_guide) has already been deleted. Leading Hotels, was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leading Hotels of the World (2nd nomination); I think views have changed since then, and it might not be kept now; I'll nominate it again soon if nobody else does. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DGG. Appreciate the prompt and clear response.

And I totally respect the principle WP:NODIRECTORY. Just wondering what would make Small Luxury Hotels of the World 'notable'. And what will an acceptable article around a company of that kind and size look like? Just for my knowledge. For now ill get back to editing Hindi movie articles, some of them need serious improvement.

Thank you once again..

Firdaushaque (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:06:11, 13 April 2015 review of submission by Vivekgupta23[edit]

Vivekgupta23 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Meritnation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia Reviewer,

My submission request for the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Meritnation) was rejected last time and the reason cited was lack of "good references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements".

I have edited the content and provided several reliable external references for all facts mentioned in the content.

I request you to review it and let me know in case you need any further additions/modifications.

Thanks in advance for your time!

Vivekgupta23 (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekgupta23 (talk · contribs), Before it can be reviewed, you have to submit it. But I will give you my informal advice that it does not show notability, because of the lack of references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Everything there is a press release, an announcement, or both, or at best derived from a press release. I also remind you that alexa rank does not make anything notable at WP. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the delete nomination of Universal Identifier Network[edit]

Hi,

I have added some content in my article, wchich demonstrate the academic impact of the Universal Identifier Network. Combined with the engeering application, it may be enough to demonstrate the notability of the UIN. And in my opinion, the purpose of all the engineering disciplines is to be accepted and used by industry. So, the applicaion demonstrations is able to demonstrate the value of the UIN. Thanks for your valuable advices. Jiangzhongbai (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:56:34, 14 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Teena13[edit]

Teena13 (talk · contribs)
- User:Teena13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am having problems because it says the article I created « https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joseph_Barnett » (which is about a neurosurgeon with extreme notable papers, some which were the first of their kind, as well as, multiple references of his affiliations with major medical influence. Also I have referenced all these things and listed those thoroughly. I could add that he operated on JFK and Elizabeth Taylor if that would help. I know I could get references for that. Also him and daughter are the only father/daughter neurosurgeons in the U.S.A. if not the world in the past century. What do I need to do to get this article published? He has made huge strides inn the field of neurosurgery, not to mention studies and papers. He also was ahead of his time, doing microsurgery techniques as early as the mid 1970s. I have proof of this. He operated on my father's lower back, doing a discectomy and laminectomy eacH time. I could even post my father's records (with the parts that were private blurred out. I could also post those along with a current photo of my father's scar, providing proof of the microsurgery techniques being used for him as early as 1976.

Tɛɛɳɑ (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is apparently about Draft:Joseph Barnett. The requirements for notability as a researcher is WP:PROF , which is based upon citations to published work; I see 7 papers in Google Scholar with decent citations; this might show notability, but it would be borderline. Otherwise notability for physicians usually comes with national level awards or offices. It is possible for there to be sufficient coverage under WP:GNG otherwise, and a few physicians with famous patients have been considered notable that wayl, if there are excellent references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements thta are not primarily focussed on the patients, and are not disguised press releases. The obit was placed by the family and therefore irrelevant to notability, being listed as donor of a gift of between $100 and $250 to his professional society likewise. Thje relevant principle is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New entry for Lois de Menil[edit]

Hello,

I am trying to add an entry for Lois de Menil. This is the first time I have created a wikipedia article, though I edited many before creating a login. I understand from previous talk threads that there was a problem with my referencing the first time I created the article, because I only used primary sources. I have added a number of secondary sources now to articles in the NY Times, Vanity Fair and to websites such as the Council on Foreign Relations. In addition I have shorted the article and edited the content somewhat. I hope this addresses your concerns.

Thank you for taking the time to review this piece.

Vwikiv As you have seen, rewriting an article under an alternate form of the name, in an attempt to escape speedy as re-creation of a previously-deleted article is unlikely to succeed--people usually keep track. Personally, I think he is notable and she probably is, but an article written in a promotional and puffy manner gives a bad enough impression to affect the decision. I therefore re-edited some of both it and the article on George de Menil in a more concise and encyclopedic format, removing unsourced claims and expressions of praise. It's enough different from the previous articles that I removed the speedy deletion tags, but I expect it to be re-nominated for AfD. I've done what I can, but there needs to be a consensus. If you could add references to reviews of their books, in French or English, it would help greatly. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG,

I appreciate your taking the time to tighten the language of my entries and make them more wiki-appropriate. I have added a reference to a review of Lois de Menil's book in Foreign Affairs and I am looking for one of George de Menil's book in French.

For the record, the name change was not an attempt to skirt around wiki editors like you. George de Menil has spelled his name in two different ways and currently spells it the American way without an S. I changed Lois Pattison de Menil to Lois de Menil by mistake, so then created the page with her maiden name and redirected it. As you can see, I am still learning the wiki ropes...

Vwikiv (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

AfD Andrew West[edit]

I removed the Prod from the article saying the subject wanting to have their article deleted wasn't a valid reason for a Prod. Article is now at AfD and is using the same thing as one of the reasons to delete. As the subject is an academic, this is more up your alley on knowing if to delete/keep. Could you take a look. Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain undecided. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Atleast we agree on something as I too have no idea if to keep or delete. Could you also take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Books by John Hill. This is another academic issue. I started the discussion, so I'm involved. I'm afraid I've unintentionally hurt John Hill's feelings. I'm worried he may stop editing. If you can't give an opinion at the Noticeboard, a word of encouragement at Hill's talk page would be helpful. Bgwhite (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at the Noticeboard. As always, I really do appreciate your comments irregardless if I agree with them or not. Bgwhite (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Locale (market)[edit]

Hi DGG. You speedily deleted the article Locale (market). On the article's talk page I contested the deletion and oen of my arguments (in addition to noting hte very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources) was that at worst it should be a merge to the parent subject of Sundial St. Pete. Would you consider restoring it so I can merge it there, at least for the time being? It is a major institution in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida which is why there has been so much coverage. Thank you for your kind consideration. AlphaJotaZed (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article. The original speedy tag was placed by an editor subsequently and very quickly blocked for having placed numerous ludicrously unlikely speedy deletion tags in response to the appropriate deletion of his own article & I had not realized this. Although I continue to doubt the notability of the subject, it is not my practice to delete on the basis of A7 without a previous good faith nomination--I am as capable of making errors as any other human, and I therefore rely on the decreased likelihood of two errors by different people.

The problem with the article is the nature of the sourcing . Local bizjounals are essentially a place for publishing press releases, and we rarely accept the notability of a restaurantor food store based only on local reviews--and reading the articles myself, they seem like PR as well. But I am not going to nominate it for deletion, at least not right away. Perhaps you will soon find better sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. For me it is the EXTENT of the coverage that makes pretty clear that the marketplace / restaurant is notable. Many extensive articles covering the celebrity chefs involved, covering anticipation of the opening, the size and scope of the business and its significance to invigorating St. Petersburg. But I am willing to merge it to the parent subject {Sundial St. Pete) for the time being if you think that's more appropriate. Just let me know. Thanks again. AlphaJotaZed (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter[edit]

Hi DGG. Would you move Kirby Delauter to Draft:Kirby Delauter and history merge the two? There is no policy-based reason to prevent the article draft from being returned to mainspace. No speedy deletion criteria would apply. See my post at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter regarding the AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter (in which you were a participant) and the past discussions about the topic. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this might be the way to deal with it on a pragmatic basis. But I explain on your talk page why it would be better to ask someone else. (A few months ago I might have done it nonetheless, but I do not feel I can now take individual action here in a matter involving a dispute between admins). DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here at Draft talk:Kirby Delauter#Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter. Do you know where an uninvolved admin can be found? This was listed at WP:AN for two months and no admin was willing to step forward to do the move and history merge. Cunard (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time Nani[edit]

I deleted it. You wrote that the notability is uncertain, but I could find no good sources at all. Is that the fault of Bing and Yahoo search (Google is blocked in China.), or am I just not looking properly? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In search of your opinion[edit]

Hello DGG,

You advised me a few days ago about an entry for Lois de Menil and were kind enough to help tighten the language. As you predicted, it has been nominated for deletion, and a fairly involved discussion has ensued. The wiki editor (Biruitorul) took issue with the sources, so I made an effort to improve them. In addition, however, he selectively chose quotes from the citations to levy critiques based on the subject's wealth, for which wikipedia does not seem to me an appropriate forum. Three people in addition to myself have opposed the deletion, none of them however has the same wikipedia standing as you or the nominating editor. You strike me as a fair monitor, so I wonder if I could ask you to look at the page and evaluate whether you think it meets grounds for notability. My belief is that the basis for notability is primarily the legacy of her work in Cambodia, though citations in Cambodia are harder to come by than in the US.

You can find the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lois_de_Menil#Lois_de_Menil

I appreciate your time and commitment to holding Wikipedia up to its high standard.

Vwikiv (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

The way we work here, is that my experience does not give me authority in any formal way. At AfD debates in which I participate, some go the way I think best, and some do not. The decisions are made on the basis of community views, not the views of experts. There are some types of BLPs (such as academics) for which people often pay some attention to what I say, but even there my view is sometimes not supported by those who happen to show up for the debate. This is not the BLP of an academic, however, and I did warn you that there was likely to be opposition. The one thing I can do on the basis of my experience is try to predict how the debate will go, and I think the chances are only fair that it will be accepted.

You should have asked me merely to take a look at it, on the basis I worked on it, & had removed a speedy on it. I prefer that people just notify me of a discussion, without trying to guide my opinion. And when people do notify me, my response may not be what they would have hoped for. (and the same is true of other people also),

There is something very wrong at the AfD. It seems obvious that you are contributing to it under multiple user names, or inspiring multiple users to comment. This is an violation of our user policy, WP:SOCK and could well cause all the accounts to be blocked. It will certainly cause whoever closes the discussion to discount the duplicative comments. We do not decide these debates by voting, partly to avoid problems of this sort. It changes my prediction from fair to unlikely,and will unfortunately affect other work you may do here. The best course for you at this point is to strike out the improper comments, and apologize. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--- Thank you for offering your measured opinion about my entry. When I asked you to do so, I did not predict which way you would vote, but simply thought you would offer an opinion devoid of the personal attacks and anger that have pervaded the rest of the discussion board. To be clear, I have not created duplicate accounts of any kind. I have simply contacted other wiki users who know about Lois de Menil's contribution and asked them to contribute their thoughts. The accusation of hiring a paid editor is entirely unfounded. And I have no idea who Trout71 is. I have tried to respond as respectfully and neutrally as possible to the content of each of the critiques and don't know what more I can do, short of editing other people's text, which would go against wiki guidelines. Vwikiv (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

Deletion review for Julie Ziglar Norman[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Julie Ziglar Norman. 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. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

responded there. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Coast Connection[edit]

Please remove proposed deletion. Additional citations have been added providing justified notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtemisCE (talk • contribs) 06:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC) '[reply]

I do not think it shows notability, but the community will decide. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebraska Coast Connection DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is supported by articles in nationally recognized publications -- Variety, the LA Times -- and affiliations with Alexander Payne, Jon Bokenkamp (The Blacklist), and Marg Helgenberger (CSI), among others. ArtemisCE (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)ArtemisCE[reply]

The place to make the argument is at the AFD

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages have become eligible for CSD:G13.

Some ideas[edit]

I came late to the discussion at WP:VPR on discouraging the biting of newbies, but it brought some old ideas to the top of my mind. See WP:VPR#Another take on why newbies find Wikipedia unfriendly. I would be interested in your comments. JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ciminera[edit]

You G-11 speeedied this in 2010, and I'd like to bring it back... but greatly modified. The deleted version was poorly written and seemed to brag about his cooking without being properly cited. In searching I found he has enough coverage and recognition as a Chef to meet WP:BIO. Your thoughts on User:MichaelQSchmidt/working/Joseph Ciminera?? Thanks Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a promotional article ending up with "Ciminera is known to be very modest ". For his books, check here-- none of them in more than 6 libraries. I suppose you came across him because of his film roles--are the films significant? I do not consider the quotes on the TV shows reliable, but a case could be made we should include every restaurant and chef with a full NYT review; a case could also be made for treating them like any other local paper for local events. And frankly, in any subject at all, I don't like picking out a word or two of praise in a review out of context. Most reviews manage to includes a few of that sort. . DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFCH script problems?[edit]

Would you mind having a look at this permalink and the history. I've noticed a few random times now that the script appears to leave stuff in the article it ought to remove. This seems to be particular to your use of the script, because I've not seen it with anyone else's usage. However, this does not happen 100% of the time. I'm bewildered. I only pick it up because I patrol Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space from time to time.

I'm not sure what the issue is, since I assume we all use the same script, those of us who use it. It seems bizarre that it is picking on you! Fiddle Faddle 08:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of is that, just maybe, you are so confident in the script that sometimes you close the tab before it has run to end of job? To be fair, I have no idea what effect that has on script execution. Fiddle Faddle 08:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's probably what is happenning. I will try to slow down a bit. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about to tidy this one. Since I'm guessing that you slowed down, any ideas? Why does it hate you? Fiddle Faddle 08:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also here. Something obviously does not love you. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stadion to mile conversion[edit]

Hi, you seem active and I figured you would know. I made a formula to convert greek stades into modern miles and vice-versa, but I'm not sure if it would violate ORIGINAL to include in the article, or if it would be fine considering there is a set amount a feet per Mile and feet per stadion and therefore would only be converting feet into miles and stades. I know you're not likely interested in math or history, but I'm seeing if below is alright to include in an article.

*1 stadion (pl. stades) is 515 ft (157 m)

1 mile is 5,280 ft
- M = 10 1/4 S with a difference of -1.25 ft per M (Every 10 1//4 stades is 1.25 less feet than one full mile where 10 1/4 stades is 5,278.75 ft and 1 mile is 5280 ft.)
- S = 1/10 - 1/400 M with a difference of -2 ft per 10 S (Every 39/40 miles is 2 feet less than one 10 stadions where 10 stadions is 5150 ft and 1/10 - 1/400 of a mile is 5,148 ft
where M is the number of miles and S is the number of stades
- ${\text{M}}=10{\tfrac {1}{4}}{\text{S}}$
- ${\text{S}}={\tfrac {-1\,\,1}{40\,\,10}}{\text{M}}$ ${\text{S}}={\tfrac {-1\,\,1}{40\,\,10}}{\text{M}}$
  - ${\tfrac {-1\,\,1}{40\,\,10}}{\text{M}}$ is the equivalent of ${\tfrac {1}{10}}-{\tfrac {1}{400}}\cdot {\text{M}}$

-Psychotic Spartan 123 21:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the only way to see is to suggest it on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Saygin Yalcin page[edit]

Hi DGG. I have seen your edit, however, it was not constructive at all. Could you please either add value by suggesting an adequate modification or just avoid "vandalising" articles, which have carefully been authored and documented? This is meant in a friendly manner. Please take your time and read the references given. Until then, please connect with the authors, then rather further editing or adding "tags". Thank you :o) comment by User: Alan Fillings

We will see what the community thinks, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saygin Yalcin DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oo7565[edit]

I pinged you about this user this morning (pings seem to be unreliable), but having a spin through his talk page and contributions, I've got a nasty feeling we'll have to topic ban him from AfC reviews - his writing style (when he's not using automated tools) appears to be borderline incomprehensible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the ping worked--I just haven't been on WP since then.

I looked at it last night also, and I've looked at it again today, dealign with a number of recent articles that had been handled improperly . I have left a suitable warning, and asked him to stop. If he does not, the necessary course will be to go to ANI and ask for a topic ban. Current practice is that this cannot be enacted by an individual administrator. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your tireless new page patrolling. Esquivalience ^t 02:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lynost[edit]

Hi Douglas. Thank you very much for your advice. However I did not understand your suggestion. Could you please help me/give me an example of how to include such "quote parameter in the references to insert a sentence"? What you are saying is a bit confusing, because many of those sources are scientific papers, not possible to edit in any form... even more, to check the use of the term (i.e. technomass) in many cases you have to buy/access the article by a university account. But you know that, you are a librarian... btw I reallly like your page/description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynost (talk • contribs) 09:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law[edit]

You postponed G13 on this once, and did some editing on it. It finally fell to G13 in January, and I have just restored it following a request at WP:REFUND. Letting you know in case you have time to look at it again. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In a situation like this, I shall probably accept it and let the question be decided at AfD. I've never been comfortable with a single person making decisions here. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Navarino[edit]

Hello, you deleted an article on our company Costa Navarino due to suspected copyright infringement in 2013 We obviously own the copyright. Can you please reinstate? We cannot edit or create a new one otherwise. FYI link to our website www.costanavarino.com Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dourida (talk • contribs) 11:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1.That you own the copyright does not necessarily mean you are willing to donate it under a free license as explained at WP:DCM, which irrevocably gives everyone in the world a right to reprint and modify it. for any purpose, even commercial. 2.Had I not deleted it for that reason it would have been deleted a few days later as an advertisement. As a general rule, content on a corporate web page is intended as advertising, and appropriately so--it's the way everyone advertises. It's intended to promote the resort, and attract potential clients. WP is an encycopedia, and our purpose is to provide general information to someone who has heard of the subject and wants to know what it is. Content intended instead for potential visitors is not wanted. Advertisement usually contain puffery, proclaiming the merits of the subject, encyclopedia articles do not. The article here began with "Costa Navarino is a prime, sustainable destination in the Mediterranean ..located in the region of Messenia... one of the most unspoiled and breathtaking seaside landscapes. The Costa Navarino philosophy is driven by a genuine desire to promote Messenia". " and goes on to list the merits of the various hotels in similar terms. "he world's leading luxury-brand golf management company", "true eco deluxe site" and so on. None of this is usable in an encycopedia. 3. The area is probably notable by our standards of WP:ORG ,and there seem to be acceptable published sources. Thus, it might be possible to write an article. However, you should be aware that the Wikipedia community strongly discourages articles written by individuals close to a subject because of the difficulty in writing objectively about it, in line with Wikipedia's conflict of interest WP:COI Especially if you have a financial conflict of interest, the only acceptable way to do this is to either use your old account or make a new account under some name, though not the name of your organization, declare on the user page that you have a conflict of interest, and then use WP: Articles for Creation. Be aware of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARC[edit]

Since they wanted to see long term pattern of misuse of admin tools, I have cited a few examples concerning @Bgwhite: there. If you hadn't read it yet, I think you should do now. Don't you think that the named IP should be unblocked per WP:IPB? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concessions and forts of Italy in China[edit]

Hi DGG, the author at es.wiki was Brunodam too. Also, as you can see from talkpage, some doubts have been arisen about content itself. At a glance it contains usual Brunodam's exaggerations and violations of NPOV. I didn't check sources but he usually uses sources with a surplus of...fantasy! --Vituzzu (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source he linked on the talk p seems to confirm the basic data, but it also confirms that calling it "concessions and forts... " rather then "Italians in China ..." or the like is excessive interpretation. I think it's rewritable, but since I'm not about to do it, the deletion is OK with me. (I did think about the possible identity but didn't check)

Personally, I think the policy behind G5 is often counterproductive, but it does seem to have firm general acceptance. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmund Morgan (historian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh. 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) 09:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Review journal[edit]

The article Review journal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The term "review journal" does not appear to be an actual term of art in the academic publishing field. All attempts to find sources for this article turned up "peer-reviewed journals", which are different from the kind of journal being discussed here. If it cannot be confirmed that "review journal" is a term that is actually used in practice the way it's described here, the article should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Tim Pierce (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will add some of the (abundant) refs in a day or two, but I'm considering a merge with review article. I'm pinging Randykitty, who has also worked on it. This was one of the first things I did here, in 2006, and I should have gone back to it years ago--I seem to have left it in outline format. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My apologies for not just pinging you directly about this before the {{prod}} -- I didn't notice you were still active on Wikipedia or I would have done so. A merge with review article also makes a lot of sense. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaNg0[edit]

Hi can you move this back to Joseph Marquez per WP:COMMONNAME, I can't move it because redirect has edits to it. Thanks! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done., under the assumption this situation is unambiguous --if anyone objects, , I'll have to revert it and let it be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also this one Armada (Super Smash Bros. player) back to his common birth name, Adam Lindgren. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

WP:COIN[edit]

Did you intentionally remove content at WP:COIN here? If so, may I ask why? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was accidental--I see it's been restored, my apology. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parametricism[edit]

Hello DGG. This pertains to the entry "Parametricism": Several Wikipedia editors have commented on this entry. I revised it NUMEROUS times to satisfy the criteria of objectivity and the article is now reflective of the subject AS IT IS ACCEPTED BY THE ARCHITECURAL COMMUNITY. This is not an opinion piece, it is a description of a new style of architecture that is very much in the process of establishing a global presence. The other editors have removed their tags and suggestions after this was revised. After reading Wikipedia's policies, I must say that there has been no thus far by any of the editors to follow through with the policy of non-intimidation of new contributors. I have responded responsibly to all criticism and have worked on this article extensively since it was posted, but it seems that anyone who feels like they have something to say will tag the article until nothing is left of it. The portion of the article that you say is an outline is in fact an enumeration of core principles. There are MANY precedents for this type of entry, including charts, lists, etc. In the context of the article, this is not an outline, but rather a LIST. I am not sure why it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria, seeing as how there are literally hundreds of such lists included in other articles! I appreciate the editorial vigilance, but it seems like a never-ending process of critique by uncoordinated editorial comments that land out of nowhere, with absolutely no continuity among the editors, or attempt to communicate in a truly constructive manner. - Daniela Gh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniela Gh (talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and others[edit]

I feel the issue needs to be addressed at its source. These guidelines have cause major issues and debate they are constantly being misinterpreted and cause great disagreement among editors. If Wikipedia is a knowledge laboratory retiring this guideline can save time, drama, effort, and should be tested. The fact is people can be notable for one event and Wikipedia covers news, just not trivial news. I recommend retiring these guidelines to essay format as a manual of style instead of rationale for deletion. Any support? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

refs for something else[edit]

[1] ttps://nypl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/20518092052907_cut_out_keep

[2] ttp://catalog.bcpl.lib.md.us/polaris/search/title.aspx?ctx=1.1033.0.0.6&pos=1

[3] ttp://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-09-29/news/54437321_1_rs-60-lakh-business-venture-infotech-enterprise

[4] ttp://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/wisdomjobs-to-raise-6-5-million-to-fuel-growth-plans-115011300830_1.html

[5] yourstory.com/2014/10/wisdom-jobs/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]