←I am a little confused by what happened to this page SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation you changed to a redirect yesterday --I see the speedy for the redirect but I did not notice the speedy or other deletion process for the original. In any case i want to recreate it as it is one of the things I know about & I'm sure i could do a proper article whatever may have been wrong with the first--If you're an admin could you restore it to my user space for the purpose? DGG 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to create an article about the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation, then Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation is the right place to do it. As long as you can find something encyclopedic to say about it, I wouldn't worry about the fact that a previous page on the topic has been deleted. --Quuxplusone 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (dp)[reply]
Hello DGG. Please see my my question for you over on WP:COI/N, regarding the European Library. EdJohnston 21:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC). You asked me about it sometime back, and I've been noticing announcements that it is finally now becoming actually useful; union lists are not used until they have almost as much content as the national ones. It's like OSX, it was obviously going to be universal , but wise people didn't switch over for a while. I waited for 10.4.
DGG 20:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I recognize your username from around the wiki (recently at some Afds I'm watching). I see you're an admin and a librarian, and that you've contributed to similar discussions in the past, so I'd like to point out the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Unusual university spam. I think it's about time we developed a clear policy about this sort of thing. As an established wikipedian and wannabe librarian, I've taken a great interest in this debate. Thanks for considering it! Latr, Katr 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your thoughtful reply. There seems to be a lot of hostility and misunderstanding around this issue, so I hope we can reach a satisfactory conclusion. If I go for my MLIS, I'll do the UW's distance-learning program, since I don't really want to move to Seattle. It sounds like a lot of fun, but I have to do my research and determine if the extra money I would be making would be worth the extra debt I'd be taking on! Latr, Katr 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There is a similar thread that I moved just below the one in which you responded that you might want to check out. I'm taking everything related to that off my watchlist, as I seem to have unknowingly created some hostility between myself and one of the editors involved. If you would, please keep me posted if any new policies or guidelines are developed out of this. Thanks! Latr, Katr 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (dp)[reply]
Please please help on page, Mosmof and 1 other user have taken it, and the 5W PR page hostage. Can you bring some balance as you have before. (Binyaminyigal (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC))
Please please help on Ronn Torossian page, Mosmof and 1 other user have taken it, and the 5W PR page hostage. Can you bring some balance as you have before. (Binyaminyigal (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
No, I think it was an honest mistake - my edit summary was meant to be taken literally, not as minatory (perhaps not the best phrasing). He is on the warpath again at Four Great Inventions of ancient China but I don't worry too much about that. There's absolutely no chance of me going for admin. Keep up the good work at AfD etc, & I'm still waiting for the Master of the Playing Cards expansion. Johnbod 03:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. You do not need to change policy to have people notified about AfD. You might want to contact the developer of User:Android Mouse Bot 2 to see if s/he can create an Android Mouse Bot 3 to post the AfD notifications using stats from Wikipedia Page History Statistics. If you check out my contributions, you'll see that I am in the process of manually using Wikipedia Page History Statistics to add AfD warnings to those AfDs listed at the bottom of the August 13th AfD list. I also add {{Welcome!|-- [[User_talk:Jreferee|Jreferee]]}} to their talk page if they are new. I utilize Microsoft Word to assist me in all this. -- Jreferee(Talk) 16:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that happens is the article itself sometimes is not tag for deletion even though the article is listed at AfD. See this, for example. -- Jreferee(Talk) 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've written an essay on the AfD problem in an attempt to delineate the issues and possibly to address them. I'd very much appreciate any comment you have time to give. Others who notice this are also welcome to comment and/or edit the essay. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After waiting a while, I just would like to ask you, wether you have seen my question there. Regards, —αἰτίας•discussion• 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commented there. DGG (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a bad idea - although I'm sure it'll be gamed by people seeking to exercise superiority over other admins. As with all things, the ethos in question applies only with a good dash of reason; I sure wouldn't want people overturning BLP or OTRS deletions on me without consulting me first. :-) east.718at 21:08, January 22, 2008
I think a cat might be a good idea, to complement "administrators willing to make difficult blocks" and all the others - but can't think of anything succint enough at the moment. "Administrators willing to be reverted" sends the wrong message to me - got any ideas? east.718at 19:48, January 23, 2008
I just saw "This admin encourages other admins to be bold in reverting his admin actions." at User_talk:BovlbDGG (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the reports because I could find no mention or quote in any independent news organization or other website other than self-added directories--no membership in related associations, identification of authors, presentations or papers, networking--for 100+ reports that are sold via payloadz. Is this a distributor or some sort of a compiler? Flowanda | Talk 06:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are I think a well-established market research organization,--but in any I may remember wrong, and will check on both parts of it tomorrow. DGG (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as murders go, Cisse was more notable than average. But the deleted article cited a full-length article in the New York Times—for a Chicago murder. I doubt this new source would convince any who favored deletition.
Moreover, I'm also a bit of a deletionist myself, and I primarily created the page because of apparent user demand for it. I would support a DRV though. Cool HandLuke 23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shall do as I usually do, wait for someone else to open it and then support overturn & relist. I don't like feeling isolated more than the inevitable. Your comments in the AfD already made clear that you had a neutral attitude, just as I would have expected. DGG (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the urgency in deleting non-BLP, non-promotional articles which are on the cusp of notability. The event is certainly noteworthy enough to get coverage somewhere on Wikipedia; deleting it and saying "no merge target exists" is a recipe for wasted efforts that clashes with my eventualist outlook. If I revive it, I'll let you know. Cool HandLuke 23:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good people of all tendencies can usually agree on practical action and the merits of compromise positions. DGG (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... please see [[User_talk:The_Bipolar_Anon-IP_Gnome/Flag-prof#example_of_using_FLAG-BIO_..._message_for_User:DGG|this message I left for you]] on another talk page regarding my [[User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Flag-bio|WP:FLAG-BIO]] protocol, as well as [[User_talk:The_Bipolar_Anon-IP_Gnome/Flag-prof#difficulties|my replies to your comments]] ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk·contribs)22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It first appeared in the Calgary paper, which isn't some small-town outfit with a circulation 200; it serves a city of around 500K. If they thought it was notable enough, & if a second paper, the local here (the Star-Phoenix) picked it up (for a city pop 200K), thought it was, I would have thought that would do it. Me? I thought a new way of reducing obesity without evident health hazard was of sufficient interest people might just want to know. And given the number of pages about obscure stuff that have slim chance of even making a major newspaper, I'd say it passes. Of course, I am a bit biased, having created the page, but I'd never have bothered if I didn't think there were people like me who might find it interesting, or valuable. Trekphiler (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the book mentioned on the page, I'm completely at sea. I'd never heard of it before, & I'm completely unqualified to comment. A quick google comes up 15300, led by CTV, which is probably just a reprint, & a bunch of hits for Slim Styles "diet food". Trekphiler (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at this. I just chanced on the article.
I found the article unclear as to what "St. Patrick's Purgatory" IS. Is it the name of the pilgrimage? Is it the final destination of the pilgrimage? It is the area where the pilgrimage takes place? (I suppose it could be all three.)
It was when I got to the part about pilgrims being allowed only black tea or coffee and dry toast that I thought maybe it was an April First article.
The bit about an account of the pilgrimage being contained in McCarthy's Bar was what pushed me to ask for another opinion. (That and some other hoax edits I found yesterday.)
The name is used primarily for the actual area, not just the pilgrimage. The article does have some elements that are either jocular or derived from a tourist brochure. I'll check on them. DGG (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's intended to cover all areas, not just homeopathy. Kirill(prof) 02:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had asked Kirill, speaking of the board proposed at ArbCom in the decision on Homeopathy:
--is the expert board in the Homeopathy case meant to deal only with homeopathy? I'm a little puzzled how you can find a board of experts capable of making decisions on all subjects. But at least the decision should say one way or the other.DGG (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(this refers to:
The [Arbitration] Committee shall convene a Sourcing Adjudication Board, consisting of credentialed subject-matter experts insofar as is reasonable, which shall be tasked with examining complaints regarding the inappropriate use of sources on Wikipedia. The Board shall issue findings, directly to the Committee, regarding all questions of source usage, including, but not limited to, the following:
Whether an editor has engaged in misrepresentation of sources or their content.
Whether an editor has used unreliable or inappropriate sources.
Whether an editor has otherwise substantially violated any portion of the sourcing policies and guidelines.
The Board's findings shall not be subject to appeal except to the Board itself. The precise manner in which the Board will be selected and conduct its operations will be determined, with appropriate community participation, no later than one month after the closure of this case.
I have been startled and alarmed at the reply, and have answered him briefly:
you say it is intended to cover all subjects--I think that's a total perversion of the spirit of wikipedia, and I sincerely hope the community is persuaded to reverse you and take back the power. What you are essentially proposing to do is establish a small board of censors with a veto power over the contents of all articles. For it does affect all the content--the sourcing is in practice what determines what content is included. You are in one moment totally reversing the basic power structure here--after years of saying that arb com will not involve itself with content, and that this remains something that needs consensus, you are adopting for the demands of a single case the total opposite, calling for the selection of a small body to do the same, and with the most drastic penalties over anyone who departs from it, and no power of appeal from it. Well, I hope we will consider ourselves left with at least the power to abolish it. Before doing something like this, you need a general discussion with the community. I'm surprised at you.
I can not see how any small group can possibly take such responsibilities and prepare to discharge them honestly. There's nowhere where a small commission has that sort of universal power across all subjects--there are always a large number of editors, divided into subject committees. The only role of the ultimate editor-in-chief or board exercising this function, is to appoint them, and to decide the differences between the different groups.
Even in the organization of Citizendium, this power is delegated to what, even in their small organization, is over a hundred experts, grouped into several dozen disciplinary committees, and a fairly large board to resolve difficulties between them.
I am preparing a longer rebuttal. I am truly surprised at you--I can not believe you have thought out the implications. DGG (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're quite correct here; it's perfectly normal, in my experience, for charges of academic dishonesty to be heard before (or appealed to) a single, cross-disciplinary group. The proposed SAB is essentially intended to be a Wikipedia parallel to such proceedings (minus the imposition of sanctions, which will continue to be done by the Committee based on the recommendations of the SAB); it's not meant to be a body for deciding content, in other words, but a body for ruling on whether some editor has been intellectually dishonest in their use of sources. Kirill(prof) 04:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If its intended with that narrow a purpose, you might want to reword it accordingly, for that's not how it reads to me. Authority to examine "complaints regarding the use of sources in Wikipedia" is alarmingly broad. And the 3 numbered circumstances in where it is proposed to be used are quite expansive. They cover a great deal more than dishonesty. At the very least the phrase should be added "when they arise in matters that are before the Arb Com."-- you may think that's implied, but if something can be misinterpreted, so it will be. Anyway, do you think that in the academic world charges of dishonesty are handled all that well in general? The questions that arise in the homeopathy article need a knowledge of how the medical literature work, and others will deal with other questions. To the extent I understand them its not a question of being dishonest, but a question of whether something is being used in somewhat beyond what the source indicates--essentially a matter of proper weight. DGG (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps. But, as the remedy says, "The precise manner in which the Board will... conduct its operations will be determined with appropriate community participation". The remedy is a general statement of intent, not an exhaustive policy regarding how the SAB will operate in practice; that's still to be developed. Kirill(prof) 13:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed WP:FLAG-PROF, and pointed to WP:FLAG-BIO as the "One True Copy" of the verbosity ... I plan to prune the others (WP:FLAG-FICT, WP:FLAG-INC, etc.), but thought I'd get some feedback first ... WP:FLAG-BIO also has the {{Articleissues}} boilerplate and a few others (like CATs), and I really don't want to duplicate all of that ... I'm trying to make the WP:FLAG-xyz protocols the "bare bones" copy&paste stencils, with the "elaborations" restricted to WP:FLAG-BIO as the "starting place" for most users ... feedback, please. :-)
feedback coming tomorrow. DGG (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kewl! I've updated & rearranged WP:FLAG-/templates to show the "unimplemented" protocols in RED, indicating that they have not been created yet, and put WP:FLAG-BIO as the first one in the table, since it has the verbiage that I'm pruning from all the others ... I also added {{Prod}} to the table for the Guidelines that are not eligible for WP:CSD#A7. —72.75.78.69 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started rewording the main one. But db-a7 cannot be used for schools, so remove that from the table--they need prod. You also need to separate out the three different possibilities of no assertion of notability, no references to prove notability, and spam. Additionally, the term vanity is very strongly depreciated---people find it insulting. DGG (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, I entered IT in the 70s, and embraced "egoless programming" ... I'm pretty laid-back about changes, and have no illusions that I "own" these templates or protocols, so any changes to "soften" or bring them more in line with WP:CONSENSUS is fine by me ... I suggest that you use WP:PROF as the "master", and I'll replicate the changes. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk·contribs)16:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also learned programming that way--and I too use it as the model for here--it is the only practical way for large scale projects like this. DGG (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've modified {{Flag-templates}} to replace the {{db}} with N/A for the ineligible ones ... more pre-epiphany thinking, I guess. :-) — 72.75.78.69 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry I missed it. I have long felt a considerable degree of sympathy with the noms views, and am delighted to find that others agree at least in part. Of course, as you and others said, deleting the whole batch is ridiculous, but I would certainly hope for a certain amount of condensation. I'll leave it to others t pick out the worst duplications, but I'll support the merges. Dealing with fringe social science is very much harder than science, because the boundaries are not as clear. I think there is real social science, and am convinced that this subject is far outside it, but it's not as easy to make a convincing argument. DGG (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to see this, I came here for another reason, and I'm under voluntary restriction, but .... I assume this won't be controversial and that it will be welcome. I became aware of and studied NLP for a few years (through reading and practice, not with an NLP practitioner.) Structure of Magic and Bandler and Grinder's study of how well-known therapists actually did their work, as distinct from the generally very unscientific theories they often formulated as rationalizations, were pioneering efforts in the field. I wouldn't call it science, exactly, it's more like engineering. There is no doubt that the subject is notable and that there is plenty of reliable source. If it is presented as science, it's problematic, but, then again, lots of stuff is presented as science that actually is very poorly understood, there are peer-reviewed journals in the field of psychiatry and psychotherapy, filled with articles that are basically informed speculation. And, by the way, the techniques worked, and still work, many of them. But it's a very difficult field to do controlled research in. The hot place right now, as far as my own experience would suggest, is Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, which is still quite mysterious as to how it works, but it does work, any my own experience confirms that, and I see it working with others. It works, spectacularly, with PTSD, where traditional therapeutic techniques have be very ineffective, but ... it's brief, unknown mechanism, and could destabilize a whole industry. Current treatment for PTSD without using EMDR might involve a visit a week, at upwards of $100 per visit, for years. EMDR has been known to dramatically reverse PTSD symptoms in one session, the original clinical trials did that. But I haven't followed recent research in the field. The connection with NLP? Well, NLP was largely rooted, when used for therapy, in the inner resources for change that already exist in the patient, and the EMDR techniques are similar in awakening those resources. Whether or not bilateral stimulation is important (other forms of BL stim are now used, perhaps more commonly than eye movement) is controversial, and it's entirely possible that any other hypnotic technique would work, in the hands of a skilled practitioner. Skilled at what? At developing rapport and trust. (Remember the stereotypical hypnotic induction, the hypnotist holding up a pendulum, or moving a finger back and forth in front of the subject?). --Abd (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand GFDL, it has to be kept as a redirect to preserve the edit history. I'll make that change. DGG (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Some months ago I moved Spread of printing to Spread of the printing press as per the discussion on the talk page (that you contributed to). But in this last week the user Gun Powder Ma has reverted this move twice. I've asked him to justify his move on the talk page, but so far no response. I wonder if you could give your opinion on the talk page before I undo his revert. Thanks lk (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think spread of printing is the better title. The printing press is a machine. The operation of using it is printing. Are we concerned primarily with the existence of the machine, or its use? Your comments about Asian printing are however correct, so the title could better be changed to the spread of the european tradition of printing or some synonymous phrase. I will comment there at greater length. I have long been unhappy with the use of "Printing Press" as a convenient term for the system of producing printed books that developed in western europe. DGG (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your point. However, I think 'printing press' makes a nice shorthand for early western style printing and related technologies. Consider, one naturally speaks of the spread of gunpowder, not the spread of shooting guns; and the influence of television, not the influence of watching at home, pre-programmed studio shows transmitted through a radio network. I think 'spread of printing' is a misnomer, as it naturally calls up the earliest printed works from ancient China. regards lk (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes there are problem--I will follow up. These library consortia sometimes are just a purchasing arrangement, Sometimes have other roles & are important. We need some standardized way of dealing with them From the available ghits, it indicates this is just a non-notable purchasing arrangement, but my memory is they also do significant lobbying. I will check and go ahead accordingly. DGG (talk)
OK, thanks for the reply. Zagalejo^^^ 16:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
Sorry about that. I have gotten side tracked with life. I still do intend to add more and I have a little bit written on my computer. Carniv (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm going to wait a couple of more days to see if you comment on the page and if you don't, I'm going to put the quotes back in.Carniv (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I created a page on the Ambassador of the UAE Yousef Al Otaiba. At the beginning, it showed up on the top 10 of any google search of the Ambassador's name. Then, all of a sudden, it disappeared. Do you know if it's something that I did with the page that made it not appear AT ALL in any Google search? If not, any idea what it is, or how to make it show up on Google searches of "Yousef Al Otaiba"? Any insight you could have would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. Uaeinfo75 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
curious. There's nothing i see that should have caused it--it's not even a name problem, because they list his father. I suggest you take a look at some comparable articles for other Ambassadors and see what you find. And try Yahoo and some other search engines also. Then I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Of course, what Google does is known to be impenetrable from outside, and, after all, our purpose is not to provide a feed of articles to them. Still it's curious. We did change some talk pages so they would not be indexed, but it should absolutely not have affected articles.DGG (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was checking some references in Kondratiev wave and ran into Nova and wondered "who would ever publish that?" After a little checking on google I got to our Nova Publishers article. The talk page is informative, if a bit long. The article itself is pretty uninformative. I would personally include the Stanford web page in our article - "reliable source" really does depend on the context, though perhaps not in our rules. Smallbones (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at it again--and probably post something on the website. Assuming the article is a reliable source, and the key fact that would make it so is the comment from the editor of the Haworth journal, the question is whether a two journal sample is representative. Every commercial publisher has at least a few low quality journals. So it would need to be used carefully. I'll comment further there in a few days. DGG (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, because you are a real life librarian and because you do work on fictional subjects here, I thought you should be aware of this series (it's no Indiana Jones, but decent enough, I guess). Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 17:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains a lot of unverifiable information and the sources you provided don't seem to be publically available, which makes the chance of someone cleaning it up pretty small. Would you mind taking those sources and writing a nice stub yourself? - Mgm|(talk) 18:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Sources I gave show enough to show notability. and there is no requirement for sources to be free--lots of people have access to those sites in libraries.. But yes, I'll download them and edit the article somewhat.DGG (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's probably an article to be had of some sort somewhere. I had a look around when cybrarian came up for deletion. There did seem to be a passing fad in the 1990s and early 2000s that all of this new fangled World Wide Web jiggery-pokery was going to completely change the job of a librarian and make it all sexy and new and dot-something. There's also an interesting study by Linda Marion in the Association of College and Research Libraries National Conference 2001 proceedings that concludes that there's no identifiable job category of digital librarian. So it's definitely something that has been researched, even if it was found to be nonexistent as a result. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cybrarian is now standard; digital librarian was just become standard in 01 with an ambiguity between a person who was concerned with the use of (prebuilt) electronic resources (like myself) or a person who was concerned with the production (and secondarily the use) of digital collections; It has become much more widespread in the subsequent 8 years, though usually with the second meaning. The true evidence is job advertisements, (though I filled out just yesterday yet another survey on what people called themselves). Blended librarian is an utterly unsuccessful neologism which seems to have been used by one person only, &I regard the wp article as essentially promotional. DGG (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A centralised discussion which may interest you[edit]
Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found [[Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual
things|here]]. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I encourage you to respond to comments about your keep vote. Timmeh! 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what i find impossible to understand is the multiple opposition to the article. it would seem among the most obvious of topics. I explained there a little further. And after all, with one or two more published comments, it could be inserted again even if deleted now. DGG (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we lost this one: probably worth a DRV or a modification to NOT CRYSTALDGG (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks again for your comments, what troubles me, (given that i subscribe to the "The advanced human aircraft hypothesis" (Ufology), is that avowed military users are following a similar modus operandi, in this case. (then they call it a personal attack.) this is more of an ad hoc coverup, than a conspiracy.
i suppose i shouldn't wave the red flag of area 58 before them, the problem is, it's in the NYTimes. then the tenditious cutting down 'not authoritative', 'trivial' begins. the longwinded changing of arguments, and not giving an inch, dosn't strike me as good faith either. here we have articles about museums yet to be built, Cold War Museum, civil war forts that no longer exist, Fort Corcoran, but no Area 58. (all in the same neighborhood.) and the problem being, that if i can find it so can any enemy researcher, so it ends up only obscuring the government program from public oversight.
the implication for wiki is that subcultures, with group think, can impose non wiki rules upon specialized parts of wiki, withholding public information. the dissenters are shouted down with specious arguments:
All the quotes say is that this facility is "alleged to be" a satellite downlink station. Even if you choose to ignore the blatant weasel words, that's hardly a big deal, and notability isn't inherited from any notable data which goes through the place. The other citations appear to only mention the site in passing while discussing data which has passed through it
btw, this statement is false.
i've written worse articles, and will continue. how long will it take before they delete it from my userpage? well i will go back to my other articles, where more polite, rational editing prevails. Dogue (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some good people at the Military wikiproject. Go there specifically & ask for help fixing it. DGG (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i'm sure there are, as i'm sure all the delete voters are, it's just their conduct that is not so good on this occasion. (the quote above) the russian source, and the inside defense source use caveats, however, the NYTimes, (Bamford), the Intelligence Community book, and the Deep black book do not. authoritative, if they mean that you need a judicial order or whistle blower, no, but that's a higher standard than merely confirmation, by sources with editors subject to lawsuit. trivia, well the media attention during y2k was not trivial, the NYTimes article is about the NRO, and this installation is several paragraphs, the Intel Comm book has a page or two, and there is a chapter in Deep Black. i wish they wouldn't make statements that are factually incorrect. Tom Star said it was a hoax, and then looked like a hoax, then notable but not progressing. ALR went to mediation, and ignored the mediation suggestions. I wrote the thing twice; i doubt that any article would be acceptable. Now as to speculating about motivation: either it's a mindset, and commanding the writing of others, and deleting when frustrated with the conduct of others, or an active censorship to maintain secrecy through obscurity effort; it dosn't really matter since the outcome is the same. teleology not deontology. verifiable material is supressed from wiki. this philosophical conflict between inclusionist and exclusionist, really has no end. i conclude that i don't need the heartburn here. i can tilt at windmills closer to home in the flesh. i was serious when i said to ALR that i can provide the public protests similar to those at Menwith Hill, and Pine Gap in order to provide notability. Dogue (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
covert installations are always a problem here, as are elite organizations that shun publicity, secret fraternities, businesses that don't deal much with the public, people who work in not very visible capacities, and such like. There have been a number of articles on such that are probably notable, but can not be verified; there have also been many articles on such that are not notable, or in some cases even non-existent, and can not be verified for that reason. It can be genuinely hard to tell. As for rewriting, persistence is the key--my advice generally i to wait for one or two more sources; many things do work the third or 4th time Like many people here, I have my own list of articles that ought to be able to stay, but haven't been able to, and a similar list of ones that ought to go, and are unaccountably kept. Any group working the way we do is going to be inconsistent. Your plan to work on other things in the meanwhile is the rational one.DGG (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
many things are deleted that ought to be kept, and many kept that ought to be deleted. Just concentrate on getting the article sound enough to stand. It's the only way to show you were right. DGG (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well i don't know what you mean by sound enough. when they delete it as a hoax, when it isn't; when they delete it as unauthoritative, and unencyclopedic when it is, i can only reach the conclusion that no article however good would be allowed to stay. i shouldn't invoke the wrath of god: how about the wrath of Socrates upon the Sophists, or the revenge of Hypatia upon the christians? The sophomoric popularity contest that wikipedia has become, is not the only way to prove rightness. (i say that with regret, not anger, knowing your efforts in this regard). i can become Lindis Percy in meat-space, and i will give due credit to ALR and TomStar for their part in the radicalization process. Dogue (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for getting to us, DGG! I really appreciate it.June 3, 2009 CK~~
Regarding ECRI Institue, I have listed credible third party references and truly do not know why this keeps getting deleted - can you be more specific as to sections, words, etc.?
the only references you have from outside the institute are [1],which does not mention it, and [2] which in a general article contains a quote from someone at the institute. But the article is being deleted as promotional: 3 different admins have now agreed. Most of the article talks about how it all the vice presidents, and the locations of the various buildings. If you can find and post here one reference providing substantial coverage from 3rd party published reliable sources but not press releases, or material derived from press releases, that talks about the work of the institute, I will restore the article and rewrite it for you so it is not promotional. It will take extensive rewriting, not normal editing, and I do not want to do it if it has no chance of being notable. DGG (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG - as requested, below are more substantial references for you based on the criteria you gave me -- thanks for that. These include a book, peer review/medical journals and newspapter articles. Should I try to put the page up again, or do you want to rewrite using the below - please let me know if there is anything else I need to do.
Rettig, Richard A, et al. (2007). False Hope: Bone Marrow Transplantation for Breast Cancer, 192-195, 204; Oxford University Press, New York, NY, ISBN-13:978-0-19-518776-2.
Stephenson, Joan, PhD, (1995). “Medical Technology Watchdog Plays Unique Role in Quality Assessment”, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 274, No. 13.
Noble, Meridith, MS, et al. (February, 2008). “Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety”. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Volume 35, No.2.
Treadwell, Jonathan R., PhD, et al. (October, 2006). “A System for Rating the Stability and Strength of Medical Evidence”, BMC Medical Research Methodology.
Treadwell, Jonathan R., PhD, Fang Sun, MD, PhD, and Karen Schoelles, MD, SM (November, 2008). “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bariatric Surgery for Pediatric Obesity”, Annals of Surgery, Volume 248, No. 5.
Landro, Laura. “For Patients, a List of Hospital Hazards”, The Wall Street Journal, December 23, 2008, page D2, Retrieved May 26, 2009.
Smith, Virginia A., Inquirer Staff Writer, “Confronting Bulimia”, The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 27, 2006, FEATURES MAGAZINE, page E01.
In practice, it would help to have links. But I am almost certain that most of them are articles merely mentioning the center , or studies where the center played a role, not about the center. The most likely is the JAMA article, & I'll check DGG (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG - Help!! On May 24 on your talk page, you had offered to rewrite the ECRI Institute article. I have provided everything I can to help you in terms of references, and rewrote the page myself on my User page. I don't know what to do next. Is there someone else that can help me? Carol ~~
Kindly email me the text of the JAMA article, which is the only one that might possibly prove notability. It is not available on line that I can determine. DGG (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG - Happy to scan JAMA article for you - can I add it to your talk page as an attachment somehow, or should I email it to you? THanks for your help. Carol~~
I have emailed you. DGG (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just scanned and emailed NYTimes and JAMA articles for you. CK~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocherecri (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do tonight or tomorrow. DGG (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David - I really appreciate it and good luck!! June 3, 2009 CK~~
and the related Joseph T. Dipiro article: an IP editor commented that one was very similar to content on another website, and a quick google search revealed that they both appear to be copyright violations. I agree that the journal could be made into a good article, but it may be better to start from scratch. I've tagged the articles, but if you could review and do what you feel is right I'd be grateful. Verbalchat 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I can rewrite them. DGG (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll help if needed - hopefully tomorrow. Yours, Verbalchat 22:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)(good god I nearly put "xxx" rather than ~~~~ by mistake)[reply]
CfD nomination of Category:Library types by subject[edit]
I haven't formulated an opinion on this yet, so I'll be interested to see what you have to say. Cgingold (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you'd like to know, I've made a renaming proposal for this category. Cgingold (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)= Merge discussion at Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy) ==[reply]
Hi DGG, thanks for your note. I think you do tons of great work, but when I suggested putting you to work I didn't mean on that article, so to speak, since I don't think the title is right. Does that make sense? I think the topic is important, but not in this form. Oh, I see now that it's gone. You know, maybe I should put my money where my mouth is: if I have a moment, I'll see about adding a note (or a paragraph) with those references you found to the Anti-Scottish sentiment article. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the title is not right-- but it's more specific than anti-scottish sentiment--there is a true overlap. I have not yet thought of a better title, or I would have suggested it The material I picked was from the first 20 gbook hits, there seemd to be thousands of others. I wonder what's is the 19th c. novelists.... DGG (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've consulted an expert. The actual best source was already in the article as written: David Daiches, "Two Worlds: an Edinburgh Jewish childhood." Shows how wrong it was for it to be deleted. I rarely use the term political correctness, but it applies here. DGG (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated William Monahan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- OlEnglish(Talk) 21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commented. the problems are quite radical. With the socks gone, we can see some rationality about this. DGG (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thank you for your advice re writing style and use of citations for the Southbeach Notation article, which now has a 'this looks like a news release' tag on it at the moment. I have added a lot more detail, further references, and comparisons to other notations to illustrate the notable differences. Can you confirm if this is now in an appropriate state to have these tags removed? Or is there further work required? Your advice is much appreciated. Mbonline (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, 1/you overdid the detail a little. 2/the first paragraph is unclear: what is "situation improvement" ? I don't think it's an English phrase 2a/ much of the rest is unclear also, such as "power of expression is derived from the interpretation of the models made by the people using it." Does it perhaps mean that it's flexible to accommodate different concepts? And what is "perspective alignment in individuals" ? I think I know what you may have in mind, but I'd have to guess. 3/most of the semantics section seems standard concepts, not particular to this scheme 3a/ Ditto for the sections on ".1 Multi-perspective Situational Modelling" and especially "Structured brainstorming" 4./The "Example is a tutorial, and not appropriate content 5/and most important, I continue to see no references at all to show that anyone except the people who developed it think it important. DGG (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will attempt to address these points. Regarding 5/, there are references to articles published in bptrends and trizjournal, which are both respected publications. Do these not count as independent authorities saying this is important? If not, what kind of references do you think are necessary? Mbonline (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ECRI Institute is a research institute that is very well-respected in the medical community, known for its evidenced-based research on healthcare, health devices and protocols, and patient safety issues. The content on the journal articles are primarily ECRI research (not mere mention.)
Here is the link to our research study in the BMC journal:
again you do not understand. What is needed is articles not where you make studies, but where some other group discusses your importance. DGG (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please check again - False Hope book is good one to check. I can attached an assortment of newspaper articles, but your email doesn't seem to be set up for attachments? CKKocherecri (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
.Email me from here, and I will reply from my regular account. You list a few pp. in the book. copies of them, perhaps? DGG (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will email. I am being pressured to get the page up and as I am new in this job, I don't want to disappoint. We were initially very excited to join WIkipedia, but it's becoming more complicated than we thought. Here is a link:
to many, many third party news articles about us (Not written by us, but by Phila Inquirer, Wall Street Journal). If I can have our librarian scan pages from the False Hope book, I will. In the meantime, I am emailing you some copies of articles where our doctors are quoted and interviewed, or where some of our break through research is highlighted, particularly in bulimia and hospital fire safety. I'll try to repost the entry with some of these references (before I get fired.!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocherecri (talk • contribs) 16:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tell them that they have no business pressuring you, because it is not under your control. We are not an advertising medium where the end result depend upon your diligence. What you have said about getting paid on the basis of your success in getting the article in wikipedia is a clear indication that you ought not to have written the article in the first place--see WP:Conflict of Interest Anyone paid to put entries in Wikipedia who is paid by results is inevitably going to be disappointed; we almost always remove such articles. Nor do organizations "join" wikipedia; rather, individuals edit on topics that interest them. Whether or not you have a page, and what it says, does not depend upon you, but upon the community. Once I get the material, and if I think it will support an article, I will do what I can, because I think you might well be notable--but that won't help unless there are sources to show it according to our rules, because I am not the one to decide if the article gets kept, nor is anything kept because someone thinks it is notable. I will work on it in a week or two, not immediately; I have my own priorities. I don't get paid for this, you know--none of us do. I am willing to write the article from scratch, nonetheless, because I think it will help the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, DGG - I was kidding about the being fired - humor doesn't transfer well online. We absolutely are not hoping to be on Wikipedia for business purposes, but we truly believe that we are notable and interesting, and worth folks knowing about. You certainly seem to have a lot to handle. I went back to the content and compared to like organizations (AHRQ and Advisory Board Company.]
I have rewritten the article and removed promotional copy, added the proper references as per directions for citations in Wiki: Your First Article. Can you view my user page and see how it looks now, or can I post it somewhere temporarily for your review? I am unable to repost,obviously. Thanks! CKKocherecri (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to see no sources about the organization, just some reports it has issued; the article still appears mainly promotional. I removed some of the worst of it, unsuitable even for user space. As I have no COI, & as it might be notable, when I have a chance in a week or two I may try to write an article about it. Anyone else without COI is welcome to try , of course, and I certainly would encourage them to do so. End of discussion here, please. DGG (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ECRI Institute
Hi Dave - A strange thing happened today at ECRI. Our forensic scientist and on of our vice presidents received a google alert today as he tracks instances of ECRI Institute on the Web. The Google Alert gave him my most up-to-date User Page from last night, complete with the references you asked for. I had rewritten it to take out all promotional verbage.
I will send you the link because it may help you to see if I am getting closer to being publishable on Wikipedia. He was happy to see we are attempting to have a mention there, as we are truly notable.
I would like to email you the link he received today with all my user page content. He of course if we were in fact on Wikipedia? He saw that we had been deleted and was concerned.
The message he got, with the link to my WIki user page, was:
Google Web Alert for: "ECRI Institute"
UserKocherecri Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
ECRI Institute is a nonprofit organization that uses the discipline of applied ... ECRI Institute publishes hazard reports and alerts journals resource ...
I didn't know that my user page could be out there for the public to view in such a way. CKKocherecri (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can view other people's, they can view yours'. What you mean, I suspect, is that you did not know that google indexes it. They do. I don't think they should, and we could prevent it by technical means, but the consensus here so far as been otherwise. DGG (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David - You recommended yesterday that I try again to write my ECRI Institute article with the references you found acceptable. However, when I go to Create an Article, I get a message "Unauthorized" and "This page is currently protected and can be edited or moved only by administrators." As an administrator, can you help me to go back in?
Also, we are referenced on the AHRQ website http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epc/ecriepc.htm. It's a full page about ECRI being an Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC). AHRQ is actually an article on Wikipedia.
I could really use some help with my next steps as I am happy to try again at this, as you recommended. It seems like you are really, really overloaded. Is there any other administrator who might be able to help me? Thanks, DGG 6-16-09
carolKocherecri (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
any editor can do this. it does not take an administrator. DGG (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions[edit]
DGG,
I have an enormous amount of respect for you and have no wish to damage your reputation both personally or as a Wikipedian. I hope you can take my initial response ("Are you having a laugh") as a reaction to you making (IMO) an astonishing mistake rather than perceived incompetence, inexperience or ignorance. Perhaps I misunderstood what you thought the book could be cited for, or perhaps you were "voting" to keep a list that wasn't actually quite the same as the one I believed I was sending to AfD. Indeed, many of the keep "votes" seem to be for a "list of rare diseases", which is quite a different thing. I am genuinely sorry if my response was hurtful. Colin°Talk 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no problem. I may not have been clear enough in the first place. DGG (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here [3].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, David. Thank you so much for helping me fix/edit my article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lockwood_(author). I just learned that you left out the "Green Books" section? My reasons for doing that's because those books (green) are so much different from Lockwood's earlier books on architectural and urban history. Second is, 25 years has passed since the publication of his architectural history book. If this is not acceptable, I think I'll just go re-order the books so the most recent comes first and the oldest book last? Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on the article talk page. Please remember that anyone can edit an article, not just you and me. When I edit, I do so not an administrator with any special authority, but just an editor of some experience in knowing what will make an article that the community will consider acceptable. DGG (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion about the inclusion of Editorial Board members above, you may want to have a look at this article. --Crusio (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
removed, and am addingjustification on the talk p. will watch-list. DGG (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and I with our combined experience could go a long way to help develop this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ping about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing[edit]
Hi! If you still have suggestions for any of the 9 listed as "in-progress" at WP:UWTEST, please drop a note on the talk page for that template. We're going to start the new test now and would rather not change the templates in the middle, but it's easy to do a new test or simply incorporate changes afterward, since all we need is a week or so of data. I'm interested to see what you'd like to do, because my feeling is "the shorter the better" on these warnings. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a bit strange to me. The one reference that I can access does not even mention the term "Guide to information sources". Perhaps it should be moved or redirected to a more suitable article? --Crusio (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it's an appropriate article; I'm not sure there is a really standard term. The one I used in teaching was guides to the literature. The most common beginning words of the titles of such books is however, A guide to information sources in (subject), In any case, it can be much expanded, and I will do so: I know of over a hundred, many in multiple editions. Perhaps it should be List of guides to information sources, because dozens of them are notable individually--there will be substantial reviews for most of them; or perhaps not, because there are some that should be included but may not be, and, more important, I don't immediately want to write all the articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join in a discussion at User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Bibliography of encyclopedias over my plans to develop a comprehensive set of bibliographies of encyclopedias and dictionaries by topic. I hope you see the potential of such a project and understand that while highly ambitious it will be drawn up gradually over time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name happens to denote the most respected think tank in the UK and a research institute at Stanford University. The first hit I saw at Google Scholar or Books noted the reader's being puzzled at a CERP working paper being written by a political economist from the only Marxist department in the UK, before he realized that it was a US CERP. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there DGG, I wonder if you could just check the Stephen Marks article you tagged with news release when you get time. I’ve removed some bits that I felt might read as extraneous or non NPOV (although the article wasn't written with any POV other than notability by virtue of role/longevity). He does tend to be written up in a certain way from profiles and interviews I could find as source material and – on rereading – that ‘character of the high street’ stuff may have crept in a bit too much. Would appreciate your opinion on any bits that still stand out as needing a rethink. I don't believe Marks should be shifted to Wikinews – after I compiled the page I discovered he was on a Fashion project hitlist of pages needing creation. Should have done this before and have now added the Fashion banner to his talk page so the project can also review. Many thanks.Libby norman (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to your issues with the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_-_Armenia_National_Guard_Partnership
I am the main contributor to the 22 National Guard State Partnership pages, but I am not the one deciding what goes up on each page. I was tasked by EUCOM with coordinating the efforts of each SPP director (there is one for each State) and each BAO (there is one in each overseas embassy) and taking what they give me. Obviously, they do not want to duplicate there own work and rewrite what they already wrote on their State National Guard website so they are copy/pasting select content and asking me to upload. This is what EUCOM wanted to do in order to avoid requiring each SPP director and each BAO to learn the enormous Wikipedia guidelines and to prevent a drastic variation in style and quality.
Tell you what you suggest. The content is not plagiarized. Would a comment on the State National Guard websites indicating Wikipedia is authorized to use the content be the fix? Incidentally, we are nearing completion of our own SPP page here http://www.eucom.mil/key-activities/partnership-programs/state-partnership-program and if you click on any of the 22 links halfway down, you will see it takes you to a pdf (currently in draft form) that shows the exact same content that is appearing on the Wikipedia pages. These pages are going to be part of a printed posture statement. Again, this is to avoid having to create yet another version of the same material.
As for the pictures not being relevant to the partnership, I'm at a loss for words. These were very carefully selected from a large pool of pictures and they each show something meaningful about the program. The soldiers lined up on the airfield getting off a plane is an example of a monumental form of cooperation among two countries that just a few years ago were bitter enemies. The fact that they appear together at all in a picture like this should speak volumes. If you don't get that then I suppose nothing I say will matter.
Copyright. WP requires that all material be either in the public domain or licensed under a free license, by which we mean a CC-BY-SA license, which irrevocably gives everyone in the world the right to copy, reuse, and modify the material. Permission for WP to use it is not sufficient--WP is a free encyclopedia, which intends its content to be used freely for any purpose, even commercial, as long as attribution is given and the material remains freely licensed. Any use of material not under such a license is limited to brief quotations. We do not permit any compromise with this.
We additionally do not permit Close paraphrase of unfree material; not just the words must be changed, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas.
As I mentioned, material published by the uS Government is in the public domain, and so is material published by a certain few individual US states, such as California. (This does not apply to photographs or other material they reprint from elsewhere, which may already be under copyright). Material from most states requires a license--see WP:COPYRIGHT.I note that almost all material from other country's governments (and the UN) is not in the public domain--the US is almost unique in this generous provision for free use.
Plagiarism, which applies to all material, free or unfree, copied or paraphrased. Anything taken from an outside source must be attributed to the source explicitly. This goes beyond copyright--it's a basic convention of responsible writing.
conflict of Interest You are apparently editing on behalf of a group of outside organizations, as part of your job. This creates a conflict of interest. For our rules on this, see WP:COI. We do not absolutely prohibit it, but we do examine such edits very closely for objectivity. As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without COI; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.
Ownership. Nobody owns a WP page, and anything you write is subject to editing by anyone--as an official editor you are no more entitled to determine the content than anyone else.
Notability A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. All or almost all the sources in the articles are from the relevant government units, and do not show importance. There should however be newspaper articles available for all of these, but they must b independent, not essentially copies of press releases. Additionally, such sources can show undisputed facts, but they can not be used for conclusions, such as the success of the programs, which must be shown by outside sources.
Promotionalism Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective supporters, or intended to produce a favorable public impression of the program --that sort of content is considered promotional. WP is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion of even the most worthwhile things.
Illustrations. Actually, I noticed that photograph to which you might be referring, in the California-Ukraine article . I noticed it as a very good photograph, though there is nothing to indicate the field as being in the Ukraine But there is no need for the duplicative photographs of soldiers practicing treating casualties in the Illinois-Poland article--onei s sufficient; and I do not think purely ceremonial photographs such as [[4]] or [[5]] or [[6]] are appropriate--dignitaries meeting each other are PR, as are group photos of the participants. They may make good PR, and good content for the organizational websites, but they add nothing that cannot be said in words as far as the encyclopedic purpose is concerned. Yes, it's important to show the soldiers from the two countries working together I agree with you on that--it adds a demonstrative element beyond what words can do, but perhaps once per article is sufficient, and also those few that show actual military joint activities, rather than just training. Excessive use of what would be a good thing if used in small quantities is a sign of promotionalism--saying the same point over and over again. But, as I mentioned, since nobody owns an article, neither you nor I need decide this.
There are several courses I could take, as an experienced editor: I could nominate these articles at AfD for deletion as promotional and lacking 3rd party sources ; I could list them for a requested merge into the main article; I could list the problem on a suitable noticeboard and ask for opinions; I could persuade you to fix them; I could fix them myself. I do not want to delete content if there is any alternative; a merge would greatly decrease the usefulness as indicating the foreign relations of each of the countries involved; I will list them on the COI board (WP:COIN) if we cannot reach agreement, but perhaps that will not be necessary.
But there is one thing I must do as an administrator. I must remove copyright violations from the articles, by either rewriting or blanking the sections, or listing at the copyright problems notice board. If you do not immediately remove the ones from state pages which are not public domain, I will do one or the other, or remove what I can quickly find, and then list them all--action there usually takes a few weeks. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG--I ran into this, which has great potential (according to JSTOR), but it's hardly my field: I can't write such articles on such topics. Perhaps you can have a go? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG: Library theft is a new article that you may find of interest to check out, improve, etc. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 22:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since I accidentally got involved in an article being worked on by a WWBTOO employee (I did not realize the editor worked for him) I've been trying to avoid the Request Edit queue, but since nobody else is manning it, I'm going through it.
I don't know enough about academic periodicals to know the best course of action. CorporateM (Talk) 17:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I responded. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Muchos grassius. I would prefer not to handle the Request Edit queue, but since nobody else is, I cleared up a good 15 requests that were mostly fairly obvious.
BTW - if you care to, I haven't gotten any feedback yet on Talk:YouSendIt#Draft_for_consideration. I'm pretty happy that they included content from an analyst report, because this is something volunteers will never have access to otherwise, but I feel we could use feedback on the BLP issues and any anti-promo tips. CorporateM (Talk) 21:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan said he would take a look after his Wikibreak, so I'll wait for him! CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you have a moment could you please have a look at this edit of mine and the discussion on the article's talk page. I'd like to hear your opinion especially about this SENSE reference. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In working upon this topic, I observed that you had a particular interest in list of proverbial phrases. When I get a moment, I plan to make some bold edits there as it seems to have gone quiet. Just letting you know in advance... Warden (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
we perhaps should talk first. The main thing I think it needs is citations. I could put in a few dozen/hundred quickly. then of course it needs articles on all or most of them--that part I do not want to do. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An editor is interested in the correct title and information pertaining to the article entitled "CSA (database company)". Of course, I am also interested in accuracy. The introduction use to say that the company name is "CSA Illumina" [7] under the ProQuest banner.
However, someone tagged the article, and removed the "Illumina" from "CSA Illumina" in the intro [8]. The editor did leave a query on the talk page. Today I have responded and assembled some links. Although the other editor has not responded (not a lot of time has passed), it seems to me that "CSA Illumina" is not incorrect [9], but it may also be called CSA Illustra [10].
In any case, now that I have wet your whistle with the above external links, maybe you could review the talk page discussion, and links, and maybe you can come up with something (I hope). Thanks in advance. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check the sources later today. I have some familiarity with the company DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just added some refs to the Science Citation Index article. It looks some interesting reading, if you have the time and interest. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your very interesting message. I have read it all with interest, and replied to the part that is of most immediate relevance. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there is a discussion here about the definition of what constitutes a "review journal", which is hampered by a lack of good sources. Would you know of any? In any case, please participate in the discussion. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clean up the promo language and emphasis on activities not really noted by independent sources? I have a feeling your tax dollars were at work in the creation of that article. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I noticed that you PROD on Wayra as being a non-notable business incubator, which expired on June 24th 2013. I would like to discuss this with you. Wayra is now the world's biggest technology incubator, and has academies in 14 countries. I am the CEO of a current member company. There are many press articles about Wayra in both Europe and Latin America. In the UK alone 28 companies either have been or are going through the incubator currently.
Wayra has also now partnered with UnLtd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnLtd to create a joint social-business incubator called Wayra UnLtd. Again, there is much press coverage and independent coverage from non-profit organisations about this new incubator that establishes notability to some degree.
Wayra was opened by Boris Johnson, is run by Telefonica, has had guests such as HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and numerous politicians, leading investors, etc visit it or mentor at it.
Are you willing to consider allowing me to contribute a neutral, informational piece on Wayra that establishes notability? In many ways it is more notable than Techstars for its breadth and reach, yet Techstars seems to have little problem securing a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techstars
It was only deleted by the WP:PROD deletion mechanism, and since anyone could have stopped the deletion while the prod was running, our practice is that it will be restored for any good faith editor who wants to work on it. I will restore it to your user space as User:JonathanMayUK/Wayra.
Please read WP:CORP and WP:COI before you begin editing. Remember that the references must be references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. They have to discuss the company not just record an investment or acquisition, and be written by independent writers and journalists show make it clear they are not just repeating the press releases.
That it's the largest in its field is relevant, but not determinative, but you must have a source for it. That any of the companies have been substantial enough for WP articles would help. That notable people have visited there is usually not even relevant. It's done for the PR value, and we see no reason to repeat it.
It must provide information that a general reader coming across he name of the company would want to know, not directed at those who might want to participate or contribute. It can mention the social purpose of the group, but not talk extensively about its worthy intentions . It needs not discuss the principles of company law in the uK under which it is organised & regulated. It must not use adjectives of praise, the material given should show the notability so obviously that it isn't necessary.
The article UnLtd is not very satisfactory for many of these reasons, It uses words like "outstanding", It does not say what it has actually accomplished in the 13 years it has been operating , and not a single one of its references are really satisfactory, except the first one which can be used as a basis for the plain facts. At present, unless I, you, or someone fixes it, it is very likely to be deleted.
Techstars may have apparently written by a PR firm specializing in writing of WP , for it shows the characteristic hallmarks: about half of it is an anecdotal account of the formation of the company, which is of interest only to the principals and their immediate families. But it does the rest well: it shows the accomplishments, including formation of companies with articles here, many of its references are good. It needs editing, not deletion. I do that sort of editing & I'll clean it up tonight, if you want to look at it tomorrow.
Hi. Instead of just posting warning boxes at the top of the article, could you please explain on the Talk Page your argument for flagging the article as being written like an advertisement and the content having been copied and pasted? It has been over a month and nothing has been discussed. Thanks, Vivj2012 (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional:use of adjectives of praise
copyvio: first section copied almost word for word from [11] DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you highlight the promotional content? I need examples of adjectives of praise so I can request another editor improves the content accordingly.Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. The 'written like an advertisement' warning box has been at the top of the Ruby McGregor-Smith article for four months. Without knowing what's wrong with the content I'm unable to improve/resolve it. Could you get back to me when you have a moment? Many thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been already voted to keep by Admins, so I will be removing the box you have placed on the article. Please do not go on a deleting spree. Thanks (talk) 10 July 2013 (NZST)
the AfD will decide, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deon Swiggs. I've been wrong before, and that's the purpose of AfD. to see what others think. I suggest that a more compact and less hagiographic article might help persuade people to keep it. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On Talk:Strayer University, you mentioned that you wanted to make some edits to the draft version created by Hamilton83 found at User:Hamilton83/my sandbox. Were you still planning to make those changes? Would you like some time to do that, or is it okay if I move over draft into mainspace? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get there today. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet ready--see my comments there. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I haven't forgotten. I'll get there soon. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update - very much appreciated! QueenCity11 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't forgotten. Some discussions this last week were rather long to deal with, & I'm a little behind. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I appreciate that you have been keeping me posted. Yesterday I spent some time updating dead reference links since Stevens switched over to a new website. Thank you again. QueenCity11 (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG -- Just wanted to check if you have a sense of when you may be able to review. I am getting pressed for an update and want to report back with the latest. Thank you again! QueenCity11 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I shall try to get to it this evening. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Just wanted to check if you think you'll be able to review soon. I appreciate all the help and guidance you have provided thus far. If you would prefer that I look for help from another editor at this point, that is fine - please just let me know. Thank you! QueenCity11 (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Stevens Institute of Technology[edit]
It will be this weekend. I know I've said it before two or three times, but I'm feeling embarrassed enough to actually do it, instead of trying to learn something I haven't done before (last week, the new version of the New Pages list, this week, AfC.) DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i've been procrastinating plenty myself. How long has it been since I helped out at PAIDHELP? I spent yesterday working on Man With A Mission and trying to decipher horribly machine translated Japanese news sources. So, yeah. But i've pledged to work through the PAIDHELP page today and get everything done. SilverserenC 21:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For cleaning up City University of Seattle! Your editing expertise is much appreciated and respected by this lowly Huggle jockey. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just begun. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, thank you for your message on my page. Sorry that I have corrected the article about CityU befor I've read your advice. I appreciate that you insist on beeing neutral in the tone of an article. But when the Swiss authorities have accused the headmaster of the CityU of fraud than I am not sure how you could say what happened without using the appropriate expressions, in this case "allegations" and "fraud". The article is (as I have written) not about a subsidiary. So for a reader it is of minor interest to read something about the Swiss branch, but if you want to inform you about the reputation of something or someone, than it's quite intersting to read about allegations of fraud. And I have of course read the Wikipedia policies about neutrality. They say that while neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. And ok, I don't think that the expression "allegations of fraud" is per se not neutral, but even if that should be the case and the term is not neutral, in my opinion it's the most clear description of what happened. This is, not just a university program that became unstable.Please tell me what you think about that, kind regards, saintcyr.
PS: I think it doesn't matter whether someone has a personal involvement with the issue he's describing as long as his point of view is candid and based on facts. I think some of the best articles here are written by people with a personal involvement with the issue they are describing. But though you seem to think otherwise I can assure you I have no personal involvement in the CityU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintcyr1 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The matter must be included, but it can be done a little more subtly than you did it, as I shall demonstrate there. Among the techniques for doing this is use the word once in the article as a quotation; it need not be repeated. (And we'd need the quote not just in English translation, but in the original language used.) And it certainly must not be used in the section heading.: we do not make moral judgements, and through things are reported as there are, summaries must ber as absolutely neutral as possible. that goes for edit summaries also: loaded words should never be used there. And we consider the very word "allegations" to be non-neutral. And the entire section should be summarized, to avoid disproportionate weight. If negative information is reported disproportionately or loaded words used more than necessary, it gives the impression of holding a grudge, not of NPOV writing. It is my responsibility to prevent anyone from using Wikipedia for such a purpose, just as it is to prevent it being used to cover-up serious matters. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your point of view, but I still disagree with you on that. So I have opened a discussion on the matter on the CityU talk page. Saintcyr1 (talk—Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's a tenured and well-respected administrator with a reputation for even-handedness and an excellent grasp of our policies. You would save everyone's time if you just took his advice on how to present such a controversy without disputing it. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've commenting further, on the article talk p., Talk:City University of Seattle. I've tried to explain the standard WP policy, and also my general approach to this particular type of problems. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has come up at OTRS and I'm trying to get a handle on its current state. I see that some sourced negative statements were removed (diff) and then some unsourced positive statements too. (diff). I trust that this article has gotten the attention it needed and is under watchful eyes, but could you help me to understand why it was appropriate to remove all of the negative content as well? I briefly looked at the [German] sources and 3 of them looked initially ok while 3 clearly did not. Just looking for a little guidance if you get a minute. Cheers! Ocaasit | c 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've neglected following up this one. I'll email you about it in a few minutes, as some of it is indeed on OTRS, and I need to give an opinion about individual motives. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
tomorrow, actually--it's a little complicated. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings DGG. I was looking at WikiProject NIH and it appears to be pretty inactive. Since you and one other are the only apparently active members I wanted to ask. Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the articles there certainly still need work: classic promotional institutional pages, in many cases, (much probably copied, and needs ref to the sources, though it US-PD) and overly brief summaries in others. Perhaps if its just the two of us we could simply divide them up. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly be glad to help out. I looked through some of them and your right theres definately some work to be done. I also noticed there seemed to be some that weren't tagged yet. I was also wondering if you think it would be ok if I did a couple things.
I would like to add the project to the Joint projects list of WPUS. The articles are already covered by both projects so it might help them a little and slightly increase the visibility of the NIH project.
I would like to expand the title on the template to spell out Institutes of Health. Of course I would leave the existing one as a redirect. I have had a couple folks ask me what it meant already (along with WikiProject SIA and AAA) so it might help a little.
There are several articles that aren't tagged yet that I would like to add to the project if you think that's ok. Kumioko (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
seems reasonable--just go ahead. I will look at some of the more extensive articles and do some trimming. (and some splitting--they include the bios of the Directors of the various institutes, but these people are sufficiently notable that they should be covered separately). I suggest you copy this discussion onto the talk p. of the project. I appreciate it very much that you're getting this re-started--I confess I had entirely forgotten that I meant to work on this. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG, I removed your prod from the above article as it has previously been listed at articles for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regardSoftnow 19:56,
I notied that you had placed a redirect on this article which had been reverted. To encourage resolution via Talk, I've added a Merge suggestion and opened it as a topic on the previous redirect target. AllyD (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
moved. Check also earlier versions--I undeleted the entire history. I'll mention that a key problem with the article is the unsourced claims of being exceptionally important. The sources in the article, as said at the AfD are either self published or the speeches of their founder or mere mentions. Their web page calls them a "global think tank"; such sources as I can find call them a consultancy. I suspect they might perhaps be best characterized as an advocacy organization. Their claimed connection with the RSA seems to be that they were originally inspired by a talk there by a distinguished person. The section of "membership" is link spam. See also the article on Corporate Responsibility Group which I am thinking of sending to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nod*. Concur; I'll have a dig around at a future point, and if I can't fix it I'll probably come back you to unmove and redelete it. Ta! Sladen (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)—[reply]
simply thanks a lot, best wishes john de norrona from i phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by John de Norrona (talk • contribs) 18:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I have a good deal more to do there. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This could use a rapid rescue. It was prodded, and I tagged it. Please help if you have time in the next week. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I will work on it at NYPL next Monday. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ken Pugh (Fellow Consultant) 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/Ken Pugh (Fellow Consultant) 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I commented , thanks.~
(NOTE: It was kept as NO CONSENSUS). I will renominate. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sven Voelpel[edit]
Hi, this is a friendly heads-up that I took off the POV tag from this article awaiting an actual discussion or dispute on the talk page, which (the tag mentions) is supposed to exist first. Please open this, explaining what the issues are, and then re-add the tag. Thanks! hgilbert (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading, I used a more exact tag, on both it and the main article. I've added a mention why on each. I'm not sure how extensively I will have time to get involved in this closed circle of articles, but I call attention to problems when I see them. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK...if you do have time, it would be helpful if you can point to a few exemplary and specific issues. People have sometimes asked for more criticism integrated into the article, for example, but we need to find reliable sources to draw this from (blogs and personal websites not really qualifying here). hgilbert (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did comment; but we need to find discussions of their methods in general works dealing with the topic of elementary and secondary educational curriculums. They seem prominent enough that I would expect them to be easily findable, though not perhaps online. The main article seems to have some relevant material that could be used. If it truly hard to find outside their own publications, then it's similar to the problem we have with many topics: if nobody from the main stream of discussion has covered their methods , are they notable outside their own group ? DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for deleting the Morning277 articles I tagged fro CSD G5. However, the block on Arifhasan23 was removed after I tagged Certified Penetration Testing Consultant. I wrongly decided not to remove the tag. —rybec 02:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
restored. Thanks for letting me know, because this in the 1/2 of 1% of false positives in this group of several hundred socks. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring the page. I don't believe it's a false positive, but I'll take that up with the admin who unblocked. —rybec 15:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, there are problems in how to deal with this and the similar not quite certain cases in the group. There are two possible ways of thinking about them: In the past, we have usually tended to AGF; at present, the extent of the problem is inclining us otherwise. My own feeling is still to use G11 instead of G5 when in doubt, but to use G11 rather more liberally than in the past. I think others feel the same about G11 at least--in practice, the G11 criterion is becoming "too promotional to be worth fixing" DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After you restored the page, I took a closer look at it and identified several more accounts that look like sock-puppets. I belatedly realized that I should have looked more carefully at all those other articles, too. I also read a remark by Dennis Brown explaining that deletion would make investigation more difficult. Is there a way to make them viewable again, in furtherance of the SPI, without causing too much work for the administrators, and is that something you'd be willing to do (I was thinking temporary undeletion, moving to subpages of the SPI, moving to my user space, or use of Special:Export)? Here's a list that includes most of the deleted articles (namely, the ones I had watch-listed and which were recently deleted):
Extended content
4Cabling
Aasted
American Writers and Artists Inc.
Amvona
Bizible
Brendan Wallace
Brosix (Company)
Bunndle
CHMB (company)
Campus Apartments
Certified Disaster Recovery Engineer
Chris Hobart
ClassDojo
Cleeng
Confio
CrowdOptic
DDC Advocacy
David Kiger
David Schwedel (entrepreneur)
Digital Prospectors Corporation
Dominique Molina
Echopass
Emmanuel Gregory Lemelson
Ethan Bearman
Fundology
Game Cooks
GatherSpace (company)
Genius Inside
Global Met Coal Corporation
Go Try It On
GroundWork
Heel That Pain (company)
Heliospectra
ITelagen
Inflection (company)
Inigral
John Uustal
Jonathan Cardella
Junk It!
Legitmix
Loyaltyworks (company)
MarketLive
Max Cartier
MediCortex
Mike Macadaan
Misty Lown
Neal Creighton, Sr
Network Capital
NewYorkStay
ONEHOPE
Oren Laurent
PCN Technology (company)
PeopleSmart
Pneuron
PressPad
RepairClinic.com
ResumeBear
Review Boost (company)
SJ (musician)
Security Innovation
SocialSoft
Steven M. Neil
Sweetcouch
TableTopics
Talk:Brendan Wallace
Talk:Confio
Talk:CrowdOptic
Talk:David Kiger
Talk:Dominique Molina
Talk:Ethan Bearman
Talk:Fundology
Talk:Genius Inside
Talk:Kevin R. Foote
Talk:Legitmix
Talk:Max Cartier
Talk:Mike Macadaan
Talk:NewYorkStay
Talk:ONEHOPE
Talk:Oren Laurent
Talk:RepairClinic.com
Talk:SJ (musician)
Talk:Steven M. Neil
Talk:Tee Ashira
Talk:Tom Dyson
Talk:Tsebo Outsourcing Group
Talk:WorldEscape
Tee Ashira
Telly (website)
Tom Dyson
Tom Hoban (entrepreneur)
Tom Kemp (entrepreneur)
Tsebo Outsourcing Group
Virool
Waterfield Group
WorldEscape
Zipwhip
I realize that this request is likely to be annoying and I'm sorry, but I hadn't made an SPI report before. I don't mind going to Deletion Review but thought I'd ask you first. —rybec 20:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, there is nothing more amusing that taking a statistical report from an organization and finding the holes in it. I used to get library statistics and do this for my class--nice to have another opportunity. Unlike then, I have other things to do, or I could have kept going for pages. Academic grade for the article, B+ (as of the time it was written--if someone presented it now it would be a B- for outdated sources), grade for the deletion argument, C-. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
I write because my item has been deleted for being promotional.
Yet another article similar to mine or just has not been erased. He advised me to do my article a consultant Legiotex Article modeled Apifresh, because I have no idea of the use of Wikipedia. I do not understand why the two items that are similar European projects. One remains in Wikipedia and the other has been removed.
So it would be very grateful, if I say I should delete or phrases are incorrect by having commercial hue.
Thank you very much, greetings.
Thanks for your help. I'm trying to search for similar items to see and compare. To correct mine. Any help from you will be welcome, especially where promotional tone note in the article.Rubendesign (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Rubendesign (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you some advice in the next few days. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A page of mine was recently marked for deletion (David Marks, Baltimore County Councilman). I apologize that I was not following proper Wikipedia procedure. I want to make this a genuine article on Councilman Marks, and am not trying to make it a political advertisement. I was wondering if you could tell me if this page for a Baltimore City Councilman is in correct form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Kraft
I want to get this article right and apologize for not creating it in the proper manner.
Carl Stokes (Baltimore) is better. . They all need some edits to remove adjectives of praise. And the legislative history should include only bills that they are actually primarily responsible for, with a 3rd party source to prove it, not one of several sponsors. Concentrate on factual things, such as the elections, not on the positions, which belong in an political advertisement Let me know when you are ready.~DGG
I noticed that you had deleted the page for Crown Disposal, Inc a few months ago. I was hoping to convince you that an A7 ("not significant") was unwarranted. Crown Disposal is a fairly sizeable company and a large player in the California waste management industry, operating multiple waste facilities as well as having relationships with other large players, including Recology, a very large and very well-known company.
Further, the events that have occurred at their landfill in Lamont, California are perhaps significant in and of themselves - two young men died there in very unfortunate circumstances, caused in fact by extremely poor safety equipment, practices and training. In fact, the local authorities revoked their permit for operation, and there is an ongoing court battle over whether or not this company can continue to operate, especially in light of their multiple safety and environmental violations.
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Canadian Association of HIV Research[edit]
This is a national scholarly association, but I can't find reliable sources for it. A google search for Canadian Association of HIV Research conference shows plenty of research presented at its conferences. Could you please take a quick look at the article? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an unusual situation for professional societies. Personally, I'd simply include them all, if they cover a wide enough field & are the leading national societies. This is an area where the GNG is useless. Reliable information about them is typically only found in their own newsletters & websites, and in financial reports of their activities. Anything in a third party source is very apt to be nonsubstantial or derived from there,
The afc as submitted should have been deleted immediately before G13 got to it as promotional and mostly copyvio--it's essentially a republication of their objectives and a list of officers. Web sites need to be read carefully: I notice their claim is not to be the largest Canadian organization devoted to AIDS research, which is probably Canadian Federation for AIDS Research, but the largest Canadian association of AIDS researchers. It may in fact be not just the largest but the only Canadian national organization of AIDS researchers
The best way to cover these, as I think you suspect, is to write an article on the series of conferences, or to make the main content of the article the series of conferences. We are so lamentably weak in doing these for many of the most important international conferences that this article is not my highest priority. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am delighted that you chose to review the submission, and I will continue to work on the page to strengthen it in the ways you suggested. The initial rejection was indeed a jolt but also an indication to me that I had not made the case, perhaps because I first met Myklestad in 1962 and have known and appreciated his work over these many years since; been too close to it maybe.
I have made a few suggestions for changes to the Wikipedia vibration page and see other ways in which I can suggest changes to other pages that may be helpful to others. So my commitment to the process is renewed. Many thanks.
deleted page (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)[edit]
hi DGG,
I am working for Cheil Worldwide, an advertising agency located in South Korea. Yesterday, I found out the company information on Wiki was pretty outdated so made some changes. There are lots of other contents to be added and/or revised. However this morning I found out it was deleted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheil_Worldwide
17:51, 16 July 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Cheil Worldwide (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
I don't understand what I was trying to umambiguously advertise or promote on the Wikipedia, but if you could let me know which sentences were such cases, that would be appreciated. Would you be able to retrieve the Cheil_Worldwide article please? If you'd like to have more conversation, you can reach me at soomee.moon at cheil.com (I am not familiar with Wikipedia system to be honest, so trying to learn about it step by step.)
thanks, Soomee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsoomee (talk • contribs)
I shall look at the other article you mentioned.[Moonsoomee has not mentioned any other article. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 15:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)] The problem about promotionalism with the one you wrote are first, the use of extravagantly promotional language: its "thousands of global employees create ideas that move brands, products and people from nearly 40 offices in 33 countries. ... delivers innovative communications strategies that drive business results ... creativity is world renown, ..." Second, the attempt to list the executives of all the divisions, and the very long list of services in the infobox, all of which are totally routine for an advertising agency. The article was nominated for deletion by a reliable editor, and any admin here would unquestionably have deleted it. Even were this rewritten, you have no usable references according to the WP:GNG. The AdAge material is not visible, though I will try to find a place to see it. (if it is widely available in subscribing libraries, it's usable, if it's more restrictive, it isn't--but it in any case needs a specific link or reference. and should give a sourced quotation. ) Everything else is a mention or a press release. If you are the largest agency in the country, it should be possible to write an article, but you need to first find good independent news and magazine sources that say it.[reply]
Our current best practice for people acting as press agents for a company is to submit the article through WP:Articles for creation, which gives people here a chance to review it. The rules about promotional articles, though, apply there also. Try rewriting it neutrally, with good sources, but do it there. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG,
When I tried the WP:Articles for creation, below message popped up. I am happy to do it through WP:Articles for creation but can I have the deleted article (Cheil_Worldwide) to make changes? I did not save the wording and it's a lot of work to start from scratch. --Moonsoomee (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A page with this title has previously been deleted.
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.
17:51, 16 July 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Cheil Worldwide (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
Another questions is the "good independent news and magazine sources" - some of the sources are available to paid subscribers only. Or, some are not in English. In such cases, should I just give up introducing such facts? --Moonsoomee (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.References in any language are acceptable, but if not in English, translate at least the title.
.References behind paywalls are acceptable, if you have actually seen them.
.The main problem is not additional facts, it's rewriting to remove the advertising, especially from the first part. Try doing it without adjectives entirely. List only the principal line of business in the infobox, and only the CEO.
, Please check with me before moving it back. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did more work on the Myklestad biography and have a couple of questions. But before that thanks again, and again.
Most of his work was published and how he is best known is as N. O. Myklestad or sometimes Nils O. I used the full name for completeness. Should the page title be changed to N O Myklestad or an alias created? If so how?
Much of my information comes from a Univ Texas Arlington internal memorial document as well as resumes that I have. I was his next to last PhD student and inherited his library, so I have a lot of first-hand information, but no official bio information reference yet. He was a fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science so I can probably find something there or in a Who's Who but I have to go the Univ Library tomorrow to dig that out. Is the page OK till I get that sorted out?
I also have a report on the Spruce Goose in my office to get the specs on and maybe one on the B36. And I'd like to track down his other PhD students and add that info which I can probably do through dissertation abstracts.
Meanwhile take a look at the page if you have time and let me know how you think it's going.
We do not consider who's who and related publications a reliable source, because the subject of the article controls what is being written. They can however be used for the plain facts of birth, education and so on.
Has the U Texas document been published on the web, or elsewhere. If so, you can use it.
The notability of a scientist depends on the extent to which his work is cited. For publications in his period, there will not necessarily be complete information, but see what you can find in GoogleScholar/Scopus/Web of Knowledge.
Alternative notability depends on the books being used as standard works, with substantial reviews. Get information on editions and library holdings from Worldcat, and try to find reviews of them.
What is really needed, is awards he has been given, not just those named after him.
The way to make credirects is to make a page under the alternate form of the name, with the contents reading only #Redirect[[Nils Otto Myklestad]] DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. Google scholar gives a lot of evidence of the contribution of the Myklestad Method with over 200 references to its use from 1946 to 2013. I'll be out on travel for 10 days or so but will provide additional documentation on the other points when I return. Thanks for the constructive comments. See now that I really didn't do my homework before starting on this project.
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Integrationalism, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: article is about a book, not a person, so A7 does not apply. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
my error, of course; I can't imagine how I came to make it. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good example of the two-pairs-of-eyes effect. I apologise for templating you: I was using the CSDHelper script, and was surprised (and amused) when it told me who it had notified. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would much rather be templated, than not told of my errors. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to retract all of it, delete what I wrote. If Wikipedia wants this, "Booby Piggy Bank" and this guy's article with references only to having done the world's most breast augmentations and a hatchet thrower as a hobby, which is in a blog, not a news article, nor AOL, that's fine. It was nominated for deletion once, and kept.
He might be the only practicing osteopath breast cosmetic surgeon with a listing on Wikipedia. So be it. I am not going to fight. I was outraged, but I give up now.
yes, thanks. I didn't come on it by chance--I'm actively looking among recent accepted AfCs for promotional articles, because some of the reviewers seem to not recognize them--or possibly not even know that they shouldn't be accepted. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you are doing that. You might send a friendly note to the AfC reviewer (time consuming, I know) explaining promotional language. Many of the AfC reviewers have taken heat recently for declining articles with reliable sources, so momentum may have swung the other direction. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It will be a little tricky, as it's a very experienced and generally trustworthy editor--and someone I know personally to be reliable. We all make mistakes. See a little above at Integrationalism for a really stupid one of my own. And I may perhaps be more sensitive to detecting PR, because most of what I do here these days is looking for it. Sometimes in fact I'm oversensitive, judging by consensus of good people at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kliegl Bros. Universal Electric Stage Lighting Co., Inc.[edit]
In re "Kliegl Brothers Universal Electric Stage lighting Co., Inc.". Thank you for you comments. I am aware of the article on "Klieglight" to which you refer. Reading it, in fact, was the impetus for writing my submitted article. "Klieglight" is incomplete and in many places inaccurate. Further, a responsible revision based on the title would provide technical data on a particular device. This may well be useful, but does not, except i the narrowest and fragmentary way, address the intent of my article, which is to outline the history of the iconic firm and its impact on the industry.
As for the scope of the article, I felt that it would be most useful to include material on the management and managers as, to a large extent, they were the firm. (For the recor, I am not related to the Kliegls, nor have I contacted one of them in over over 30 years. I was employed there from 1958 to 1969.)
Having said all this in explanation of intent, if portions of the article are unacceptable to Wikipedia for reasons of policy, I would appreciate specific comments that I may make appropriate revisions.
It seems to me all the current material on the light would fit very well into your article, and could always be expanded later if someone wanted to do more on the technology--at present it isn't on any more technical a level than yours. I think the article should go under the light, which is overwhelmingly the better known term, which is a criterion we normally use. However, I'm not particularly concerned about it for the moment--articles are easy to move, and this should be discussed, not settled between the two of us. (As for titles, for your present title we would normally drop the Inc. from the end.)
With respect to the article contents itself, the main problem is the reliance upon archival sources. It is expected here that readers are able to check the material in an article, and we normally refer to only published material. (Archives are mentioned, buy putting in an external link or a footnote to the place they are located.). The catalogs are no problem, since I see they are all on the web at http://Www.klieglbros.com/catalogs/catalogs.htm. The personal communications are another matter. There are two ways to use them; best is for someone to publish a conventional book using them, that can then be cited; as an alternative, if they are in public archive and have been summarized properly in detail in a finding aid on he web or in print, that can be cited.
That's what our guidelines are. I didn't write them, but I must tell you what the consensus is about them. Remember also you don't own the article. If someone else should want to merge material and get consensus for it, they can do so. I always think the most important thing is article content and references, and I will be very glad to accept your article when it is properly cited. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kliegl Bros. Universal Electric Stage Lighting Co., Inc.[edit]
Thank you. I understand the issue, and will attempt to address it. My difficulty is that some of the material is presently privately held, so I must beg permission to post it on line. If this can be done, I will follow up with you.
yes, it did. But I hadn't checked Echo today, It's not as if it were some sufficiently visual obnoxious banner that you can't ignore it. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JamesBWatson is quite active today. If JamesBWatson deleted them, why don't you ask him? Why would you expect any other admin to unilaterally override him?—Kww(talk) 19:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because from previous discussions I know that he is a staunch deletionist for punitive reasons - I also know that there are others who believe that G5 is nothing more than WP shooting itself in the foot. Paul venter (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason he came here is because for at least one of them, I had removed the speedy G5 tag, and JBW deleted it anyway. The situation with these is uncertain and there is no real solution, but as I understand G5 we may but do not have to speedy delete the article (I almost always do delete such articles, but a few are worth rescuing). In a situation like that, it is wrong for any one admin to insist on imposing his view across the board, after other make an opposite decision. The Wheel-warring definition makes this not wheel-warring, but I think it comes pretty close. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unwilling to restore the articles, is it possible to let me have copies of them? Thanks Paul venter (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't know whether you saw the question above, so I am drawing your attention to it. Regards Paul venter (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir. Long time no greetings! Thanks in advance for your view on this [12]Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we have always accepted an entry in Gale's Contemporary Literary Criticism & their similar series as notability , even if they call a figure minor. The article is in need of some cutting, which I will do tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THanks for the reply. I guess I'm missing something, because he's not coming up on Gale, and mentions in NYT, etc. are not substantial. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will double check that, probably tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again,
The article has been, once again, rejected, this time by Zach Vega, admonishing me to "use footnotes". Otherwise he offered no useable advice. I doubt if he really read the article. At any rate, I have included the interview as a reference in the bio. This is the best source I have for this. Since you are the reviewer who has helped me the most, I sincerely hope you get the chance to review it again. If you do, you will see the other changes I made for clarification. I will now re-submit.
All the best,Geoffrey Kline (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful and purposeful work to improve the Wikipedia environment. As an end user, it is people like yourself that ensure the accuracy and reliability of this information resource. I am an administrator of "Schulich Leader Scholarships" and a 'newbie' Wikipedia page administrator. How can I learn the ropes to ensure our program can begin to document the lives touched by our scholarship in Canada and Israel? Please tell me how I can avoid deletion in the future, based on your previous assessment of our page: (05:06, 17 March 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Schulich Leader Scholarships (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://schulichleaders.com/about-scholarship).
So I don't think i disagree with this nomination, though i might refrain from entering a vote. I had a discussion with the user in question, and they appear to be working in good faith. I have removed their entry from my talk page but it is of course in the history, as an ip editor. (I felt like it gave enough identifying information that i would be uncomfortable with it, though i left it up to the user whether to ask for revdel). I also left an entry on their talk page.
I had suspected that there was a CoI here based on some searches i did, but apparently there was a mistaken-identity element there. I would encourage you to engage with this editor, as I am trying to, because i believe it's entirely possible that the series of mistakes they described is true, and that they simply need encouragement and direction to contribute more usefully.
Hi DGG, I don't know who else to contact. I manage a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Global_Trading. Day in day out some users are writing false information and hate speech for the company. It leaves me thinking if i can get the article locked or delete it off completely. Can you please assist me with it. --Mahmoodyaqub (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I noticed you placed a news release flag on Anthony W. Ulwick. Can you clarify so that I can fix it? Is it written in a news style or coming off as promotional in some way? Also, I was unaware that patents shouldn't be included, so thanks for pointing that out. HtownCat (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would only been rational to give me enough time to make a case. The William T. Still article was deleted way too quickly.
There was a "G4" or (something like that) claim. Which just isn't the case, since the stub was created from zero and I actually copypasted the older article in the talk page for reference.
I'm not proposing that the guy's claims are legitimate (although they are not that far from those of Ron Paul), but that they guy is exposing so much material that Wikipedia should find a couple of secondary sources to talk about them. If you check google books, you'll see that some writers claim he is a fraud and some support him. The point is that he has presence, anyway. I had the Beloit International Film Festival Award reference and I was going to add the International Forum on Financial Systems in Istanbul, in which the President of Turkey spoke as well. That and one book (ideally one debunking) and you have 3 unconnected sources.
It is not the first time the article has been done, and it has similar stubs in 3 other languages (the Swedish one foun better references, which I was about to use). There is a legitimate need for information on this guy, who is easy to google, anyway.--20-dude (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a WHDT report, that's 3 unconnected soures outside Google books [13]. --20-dude (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been so many previous deletions, that the best thing to do would be to go to Deletion Review. I suggest you make a talk page draft first, with the new references that you have found included. Then make your case, and be sure to mention the articles in the other WPs. If you can make a reasonable case for restoration, with the option for anyone who wants to take it to AfD , I think you've got a decent chance, though consensus at DRV is unpredictable, just as it is everywhere at WP. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd be losing peer help. But if there's no other way around it (seriously, nothing??) I guess that's what I'll have to do. Originally I wanted to request the article and maybe help providing some sources. Is there any way to get that sort of deal? Or maybe some sort of "trial article" dynamic. The guy is quite a case. He is easy to google, but it's the articles from well known sources are hard to track. It's easier to find those sources (or the leads to them) in his own videos (since they feature clips). How can you link articles from wikis in other languages?? I tried, but when I open the wiki text of an article to see how it's done I can't find it. When I'm done with whatever I do (and if I do), where do I present my case for review??--20-dude (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wont lose help. I'll help you. More later. The references are in the *text* of the other language article usually, not in the references section; If you find them just copy them as they are to the corresponding part of your text, and add a translation of the title. But I will take a look tonight. DGG ( talk ) 13:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is still a weak baby, but the sandbox is here. I still have no clue on how to tie the articles from other wikipedias. I started with the Swedish article and added information as second hand sources allowed me. I think I could go on looking for more stuff of the sort, but in my experience (I'm a very lapsed wikieditor, who once new all the technical stuff I'm bothering you with) it's never a good idea to do too much of an article without participation of other people.--20-dude (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC). Ps: I'm not sure how it fits but he's mentioned by Forbes here http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/05/31/the-case-for-monetary-freedom/.[reply]
For linking the article to the corresponding articles in other WPs, there's a more modern way, but the older way still works: w place at the bottom [[sw:SwedishTitle]] using the WP two letter abbreviations. The reverse entires will get made automatically. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this might be the ideal size with enough references for its debut. Short enough to have a tight control of facts and big enough not to be a stub. What do you think of the writing, does it need rephrasing in some spots? [[14]] --20-dude (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little gentle tidying, to show willing (hope you don't mind me playing in your sandbox, @20-dude:). As I said when I mentioned the article here at first, I'm neutral about the content but was just keen to ensure that if we had an article it was at, or linked from, the "salted" title "Bill Still". Looking good now. It can be easier to format references if you use {{cite web}} etc, which you can use from the "cite" button on the editing bar. And note the "ISBN" trick: by putting it in capitals, and replacing the equals by a space, we get an automatic link to a search page where readers can check the book in Worldcat etc. PamD 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)"[reply]
And I've now turned a redlink blue by changing the initial to "I" instead of "İ". If you see a redlink which looks as if it ought to be blue, it can be worth doing a bit of a search to find the article at a slightly variant title (people with or without middle initials, or a Bill/William-type difference, or subtle spelling variations). PamD 22:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @PamD:. Thank you very much. Everyone is welcomed to play with my sandbox, specially if they are going to make contribs as good as yours. What do you mean "salted"? (No, literally - I'm not familiar with the term). I tried with the templates for references, but I kept getting them wrong. Do you think the sandbox is ready to become an article? What else should I edit?--20-dude (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Salted" means that it's been made impossible to create a new article at that title, without the intervention of an administrator (WP:SALT) - after the 3 Deletion discussions on the title, I suppose. Derived from ancient (or symbolic?) practice of spreading salt over your enemies' fields so that they couldn't grow crops again - Salting the earth. I'll leave it to @DGG: to advise on the article's readiness. PamD 22:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's up to you @DGG:. What's next? Should we get another peer review? --20-dude (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG:: any thoughts on this now? 20-dude seems to be waiting patiently for your advice. PamD 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I need help with an issue I simply don't understand regarding a wiki deletion. I hope your experience as an editor on wikipedia can help me out here. I added a complete new article about the term: "888poker" about two weeks ago. I saw that a few editors seemed to have gone over it changing minor issues which seemed completely normal. I even received the brands' approval for uploading unique content like brand logo, in game photo, etc. Items that I believe can improve wiki users experience.
Two days ago I found that a user called "2005" deleted my entire Wiki article, simply taking off the page and redirecting it to 888 holdings. I explained the basic difference between a well known brand (over 10M users) and it's corporate term and even gave the example of pepsico (corporate) having a wiki as well as pepsi, 7up and all its other brands, which is the exact same situation here. The answer I received was unclear (and even rude). You can see the conversation here at the end of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2005
As all content uploaded was 100% new, informational & non spam, I just don't get the accusations of duplicated content and the immediate removal. It can't be duplicated as I wrote it, and if there was s shred of a problem with the content itself, the right move, I believe, would be to comment on content change, instead of removing a completely new informational article that actually gives value to users. Because of the swift removal and false duplication accusations, I wonder if the editor actually read the wiki at all.
I have no idea why we wouldn't want to actually enhance wikipedia and improve it to users (isn't that the idea of wikipedia in the first place!?).
Regarding the second argument of writing it in the 888 holdings wiki, I believe that a brand this size merits its own wiki article. If more text is needed, then there is no problem to add and enhance it - it just needs to be published first (and not removed).
As other editors who went over this did not find a reason to completely remove the article, I feel this is poor judgement by an editor and I request your experience as an editor to see if this is an actual breach of wiki guidelines and give an editor's second opinion. I would like to settle this dispute as I feel there was hard work, effort and time invested in this (by me) and I don't think the reaction here was justified. Appreciate any help on this issue.
The original article can be found on the term "888poker" (view history, and then restore it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalkn (talk • contribs) 13:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
full answer forthcoming, probably this evening. This topic field is not my specialty , and I need to check a number of things some information before I can give you advice. And it will be only advice, challenged actions at WP are ultimately determined by the community, not individuals, and the community is not always consistent. In the meantime, please read 2005's response on his talk page to another editor in the section above his response to you. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, still waiting your answer on the above issue. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalkn (talk • contribs) 09:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patrolling pages today I came across this. Could you take a look at and let me know what you think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The media stories are substantial and semi-independent. I think they represent the PR technique we will find hardest to deal with, the generation of apparently respectable stories. I can't call it A7 or G11. DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought that's what you would say. You can see what I was getting at though. Have to leave it as it is then, I suppose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG -- I read through the articles you sent and your suggestions and I hope I made quite a few edits and changes, taking out minor information and referencing a CV listed on his institution's website. I hope this works for you, but please let me know if you have any additional suggestions. Thank you again for all your help. Mlgraham828 (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. This article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carola Darwin in 2008 in which both you and I !voted delete. It has recently been recreated. I can't see the original, but the "new" version appears to be not significantly different from what I remember of the old one, nor is the sourcing any better—all primary, and I couldn't find anything else either. If it's substantially the same article can it be speedy deleted as G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) or do I have to start a second AfD? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there is nothing in the new article that was not either present in the old one or mentioned at the AfD. Ref 4 in the nerw article links to a page saying she wrote a novel, but I can't find it in WorldCat. I have therefore listed it for G4, as it is better that some other admin confirm what I saw. In the circumstances, there should be no need for another AfD unless something is added that addresses substantially the concerns, If it is re-created again, let me know, and if it's no better I will block further re-creation--if she does eventually do something notable, then Requests for Undeletion will restore it. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Actually, the 4th reference [15], referred to her sister, Emma Darwin, as having written novels, not her. I've also found yet another draft of the Carola article here, and have "no-indexed" it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
== Australian Doctors for Africa ==
I found some references to Australian Doctors for Africa and added them to the article. I think that the article should be okay now, so I removed your speedy tag. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eastmain, thanks; it is now clearly enough to pass speedy; I'm not sure of AfD, but all I suggest for now is some condensation. DGG ( talk ) 10:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, could I get your opinion on this question? I'm not terribly familiar with notability for magazines. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your comments on my talk page. I've undeleted and listed the debate here. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Great Lakes Chorus? I was looking at this one as a possible rescue when it got deleted from under me. I did not find any substantial sources, so haven't undeleted it, but there were lots and lots of newspaper mentions going back many years. The article also seemed very confused about what its subject was supposed to be so another reason for not undeleting was I was not at all confident I could clean up the clarity without a good source. SpinningSpark 11:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've undeleted it, which should be good for 6 months. My current principle is to keep from G13 anything that has possibilities. I started thinking that I would keep only the ones I myself wished to work on, but that was before Hasteurbot started going so fast. There's no time to think now, just to guess. And in addition to scanning the ones about to be deleted I sometimes check the deleted ones also, to check anything obvious, though it's much slower.Even keeping anything with any possibilities, about 90% at least will get deleted, which greatly reduces the problem for the second round. I suggest it would be best rewritten by using the material there and starting over, since it is indeed rather confused. The online history of the group is a decent source, tho not independent, and since they seem to have won a national prize, they are probably notability --there should be newspaper sources for that. There must be books on barbershop, and they should mention it. If not, it'll be deleted 6 months or so from now, and no harm is done. Anyway, that's the way I'm now thinking about these. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll leave it at that then. I've been moving stuff into mainspace if I can find at least one decent source, even if the article is poor and unreferenced, but I have nothing of that quality for this one. SpinningSpark 20:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DGG. The article Wendy Fonarow, about an adjunct instructor at a two-year community college with one book and one article written by the subject, has been tagged for WP:Academic since November 2012. I wanted to bring it to your attention as a possible candidate for AfD. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a genre of music I am no expert in, but the situation is fairly clear. Her book Empire of Dirt is technically notable because of the reviews, according to WP:BOOK, which is a looser criterion than almost anything else in WP. In the case of an author of one notable book, and nothing else of significance, we have a choice of writing the article on the book or the author. Sometimes the decision has been to write the article on the book, which I think a poor decision unless almost nothing is known about the author. A person may always go on to do additional things (in particular, write additional books), but opportunity to expand the article is very rare for a book (it might for example get made into a film, or attract a censorship controversy) . In this case a few other things are known about the author, and there is one somewhat important publication in addition.) So I think there's enough to justify the article on the author, merging in the material on the book.
A reason for hesitation is the apparent promotionalism. The very decision to write two articles here is so characteristic of promotional writing that I treat it as a diagnostic sign. The elaborate discussion of how an individual happened to get interested in starting out in their field is also diagnostic of either autobiography or promotionalism. It's generally of very little interest to an ordinary reader, unless the person is famous or the career extremely unusual. The person it does interest is of course the subject, and the only source also can only be the subject, who can pretty much say whatever they care to about this. (It's also one of the very few possible ways of fleshing out a minimal article--the other possibilities are generally hobbies, minor charities, schooling details, and family history--and a disproportionate discussion of any of this is also diagnostic of autobio or promotionalism). Another diagnostic sign is unnecessary see alsos or linking, both present here; similarly diagnostic is a list of too many professions in the infobox. We're too focused on whether or not a subject should have an article; we need to think more, how much of an article should there be?
My recommendation then, is a merge/redirect on the book, and a drastic trim on the author. My experience is that when this is done, if it is reverted, then it does indicate a stubborn promotional purpose rather than just a misunderstanding of WP, and then it's time for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Back in June you did an impressively deep dive into a COIN report that I still appreciate to this day. I'm curious if you might be willing to do another one here? The issues aren't quite the same but in both cases there's no way to resolve the allegations fairly without sinking some time into it. I'm not asking for your help because of how you came out in that prior dispute, I'm only asking because of your willingness to put in the considerable but necessary effort. If you feel my request is improper canvassing, or if you don't have the time or inclination to help, then perhaps you can ping another administrator. From my last experience I know COIN can be dreadfully slow. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The FDU article was a special case, being in my field of interest, and in an area where I specially look for problems of promotionalism and COI, & know the pattern well enough to judge them. -Personally I though the issues in both fairly clear at even a quick reading --I only went into the detail into order to make plain the nature of the very stubborn opposition of the COI editor, to some extent as an example.
ALEC is an inherently controversial article as are all articles on political lobbying group, and one where I would expect a priori every major contributor to be motivated by some form of COI, whether as personal advocacy or paid editing can make little difference. I dislike our entire current approach to this--trying to identify individual editors and their organizational affiliations is relatively unimportant. What matters is the editing. In that respect, I see some problems not previously discussed there. and I will make a comment. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just saw this. I appreciate your perspective on this, though I do think that WP:COI shouldn't be deemphasized in this way. COI isn't just about bias; it's also about setting some rules about who is and is not allowed to contribute and in what ways, in order to give readers at least some reassurance that Wikipedia is an independently written encyclopedia that isn't directly corrupted by money and special interests. This is especially true in the political sphere. In any case, this is an aside. Ultimately the problem from my personal perspective isn't Ms. Lutz's bias, which I can handle fairly well; rather it's her stonewalling and combativeness over even the smallest details that reflect poorly on ALEC. Every edit, every source is contested, sometimes dishonestly. The refusal to answer justify edits, the IDHT. The overall pattern of disruption that's making collaborative editing much more difficult. This is a conduct problem, not a content problem. I thought that perhaps if there was consensus that Ms. Lutz had a true COI (i.e. an affiliation), then Ms. Lutz might back off (whether by being forced to observe COI guidelines, or voluntarily). Do you think this is better suited to another forum such as ANI or RFC/U? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DGG. The article Wendy Fonarow, about an adjunct instructor at a two-year community college with one book and one article written by the subject, has been tagged for WP:Academic since November 2012. I wanted to bring it to your attention as a possible candidate for AfD. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a genre of music I am no expert in, but the situation is fairly clear. Her book Empire of Dirt is technically notable because of the reviews, according to WP:BOOK, which is a looser criterion than almost anything else in WP. In the case of an author of one notable book, and nothing else of significance, we have a choice of writing the article on the book or the author. Sometimes the decision has been to write the article on the book, which I think a poor decision unless almost nothing is known about the author. A person may always go on to do additional things (in particular, write additional books), but opportunity to expand the article is very rare for a book (it might for example get made into a film, or attract a censorship controversy) . In this case a few other things are known about the author, and there is one somewhat important publication in addition.) So I think there's enough to justify the article on the author, merging in the material on the book.
A reason for hesitation is the apparent promotionalism.
I'm thinking this guy is bunk. Somethings pan out others don't. The ISBN of the book he "wrote" doesn't pan out and WorldCat doesn't have a book by him. Some of the patents don't pan out. The paragraph "Orun was co-developer of the Orun & Natarajan Satellite Sensor model..." doesn't entirely pan out, papers mention the model, but doesn't source most of the paragraph. Only done a few papers and rest are conference publications. The "radiosonde wind vectors at Istanbul" paper is something a college senior could do. Could you double check this for an AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to think it bunk, but rather the question is notability, whether Orun has in fact discovered a widely used method. 1/. I see no books-- no.1 is a paper in a conference publication, and International GIS sourcebook is just a chapter in one. 2/ the claim that the sensor is used in all commercial systems is unlikely, but it might still be widely used 3/In this field. conference papers can be as important as journal articles, 4/The key point is therefore, whether Orun's work is widely recognized, and this is best seen by whether it is cited. There are several scientists by that name, but Google Scholar seems to list this particular individual as AB Orun. The citations are here. 4/The key paper appears to be the first, whose abstract is here,cited 70 times. None of his other work is highly cited, and most of the work in his CV appears to be in relatively minor places. 5/One major discovery is nonetheless sufficient, but whether this is sufficiently major, I cannot tell, as I am not an expert in the subject. AfD is therefore the way to determine it, but it isn't a question of good faith, just an ordinary one of notability DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a question about your comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wendy_Grantham. Did you mean that you would have accepted the speedy deletion of the article itself or the speedy deletion tag the article's creator placed on the AFD page? If you will accept the speedy deletion of the article itself I can tag it. How do I do that? Hector the Toad (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DGG, I've seen your name pop up around the parts of Wikipedia I've perused, so figured I'd ask you this question: I've started a new section asking for input from a few editors on the Georgia Regents University talk page, but haven't heard anything in a few days. Could you take a quick look at give me your impressions? I've considered opening an RfC for more input, but figure approaching a couple of highly-reputable editors would be more efficient at this point. Thanks for any help you can give! GRUcrule (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of UFP Technologies, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Makes claims of notability (clean room coverage in a reliable source, for example). Not unduly promotional. Possibly fixable. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok , I will take another look at it. thanks DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check those articles for me please? They are proposed for deletion and I don't want any fuss. I used Google Scholar as a reliable source, but user Freshacconci things differently. Can you intervene on his talkpage, because I am lost and I am in request of second opinion. Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the first & 3rd seem notable ; I need to check the 2nd further. But you can't blame people for not seeing it, because citations in GS are not the formal standard of notability , tho they do tend strongly to indicate it. I see you've been trying to add additional info. Try as a minimum to add: the most cited paper, and the current position--not just the place but the title. And find their university website. Google alone does rather well for this, or find the university web page & search from there. This gives other people a chance to easily expand the article, and gives you a start when you get back to it. And add that "underconstruction" tag!
An alternative way of working would be to keep these pages as user subpages until you have built up enough material, and then move them. That way you can work at your own speed without people taking unfounded objections. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I expressed on his talkpage that I need a second opinion, so no, I wasn't blaming anyone. As far as underconstruction tag is going, it says that anyone can remove it in several days, meaning that even I will put it someone will still AfD it in a day or two. Its a pointless risk. I do however would like to thank you for your hard work making such individuals notable, because sometimes they don't have bios even on their Universities websites (that's why I skip on it and move on), or they do, and its in foreign language (I speak and understand Russian and English). Sometimes I might use Google Translate, but that's not much, its only gives me a glimpse of certain news agency that is native to that region.--Mishae (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. This article has been proposed for deletion. I'm tempted to AfD it instead. While it has problems, I'm not sure they're insurmountable and it contains some useful information and references. On the other hand, perhaps it would be better to either userfy it for more work or redirect it to Heuristics in judgment and decision making? What do you think? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the current title is indeed somewhat confusing, and it is not easy to separate the topics discussed in that article from heuristics in general. The study of X is usually simply called X. There are of course some distinctions, such as historiography, but historiography is not the study of history but rather the study of how people write history. Or "musicology" as distinct from practical instruction in music. But there are also such valid topics as "Methods of X" -- I've taught a course on "biological methods" which was devoted to a orientation for beginning grad students of research techniques of various sorts, and there are many topics liker "Mathematical methods of economics," or "Statistics in archeology." I have in front of me a useful little book from the Modern Langaguage Association of America called Introduction to scholarship in modern languages and literatures. So I suppose there could be an article on "Investigative methods of heuristics", which I think is what was intended. The "Heuristics in judgment and decision making" article seems basically like a more technical presentation of the material in the "Heuristics" article, I do not think it a very good title but I can not immediately think of a better. I'm going to remove the prod and change the title to "Investigative methods in heuristics", and put a note essentially copying what I said here on the article talk p. this discussion. I may try to edit it myself, but they probably could do it better. DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry for my not very good english, I'm an user of it.wiki and I contact you since I read that you are one of the major contributors of the page about Denis Bérardier. I wanted to point out to you that, while I was searching for some information about the deputies of the French National Assembly of 1790, I found that Denis Bérardier has been confused with François-Joseph Bérardier de Bataut, since in two non-wiki references (here, [16], in page 12; and here [17]) François-Joseph Berardier is the one who was elected at the National Assembly, taught at the Lycée Louis-le-Grand and was saved by Desmoulins during the Reign of Terror. This confusion probably comes from fr.wiki, where in the two pages there is the same biography (written in two different ways). I hope to have been useful (and I hope also that you have understood my horrible english =) ) --Caarl 95 (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, you may want to tweak your deletion rationale as the article is about a basketball player not college football player. I presume it's a typo just thought I'd let know. Have a nice day. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I'm wondering why you put up the Siyani Chambers page for deletion. While I acknowledge that the article is not as well cited as it should be, I am at a loss to find what about the page makes it eligible for deletion. There are a variety of different national sources on the page, making it clear that he has received national coverage. It is also confusing because there are pages for Kevin Noreen and other people who have been named Minnesota Mr. Basketball (an award Chambers received) that are far less noteworthy than Chambers. I'm worried that the article will be deleted simply because someone with more wikipedia experience thinks that it should be. Please respond so that I can know what I need to do in order to keep the page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert'sscribe (talk • contribs) 01:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry for my not very good english, I'm an user of it.wiki and I contact you since I read that you are one of the major contributors of the page about Denis Bérardier. I wanted to point out to you that, while I was searching for some information about the deputies of the French National Assembly of 1790, I found that Denis Bérardier has been confused with François-Joseph Bérardier de Bataut, since in two non-wiki references (here, [18], in page 12; and here [19]) François-Joseph Berardier is the one who was elected at the National Assembly, taught at the Lycée Louis-le-Grand and was saved by Desmoulins during the Reign of Terror. This confusion probably comes from fr.wiki, where in the two pages there is the same biography (written in two different ways). I hope to have been useful (and I hope also that you have understood my horrible english =) ) --Caarl 95 (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David - I have revised the opening 3 paragraphs of the article to remove the 3rd person impersonal summary phrases. Also, those paragraphs function as an introduction to Dody's life and summarize the highlights of her career. Since all summary points in the introduction are footnoted in the body of the article, it is not, as far as I am aware of for academic standards for summaries/abstracts at the beginning of articles, necessary to have footnotes for the introductory paragraphs. Thanks. (Backstrand (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Do you think this article is still promotional? I noticed you made some of the most recent edits to the page.
I use to have a COI about a year ago, though it doesn't look like I participated on this particular page. Although some of the content about his books could be moved to the articles on those books and there are a few minor unsourced, non-controversial items, I didn't think it particularly worse-off than most articles or that it needed a tag before, less now after my cleanup.
I can;t exactly put my finger on it, or figure out how to improve it, but it gives a hint of the tone often associated with promotional articles. I think it's a matter of there being the same kind of things to say. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi David, it's been a while since you moved page Cheil Worldwide to User:Moonsoomee/Cheil_Worldwide for some correction and revision. I managed to make it as a proper WP article, with appropriate references added. Please review it and let me know if it's good to be published. I will keep on adding latest contents to keep it recent.
Hello David, I am writing in attempts to understand why the page "IT New York" was deleted? I had revised it after researching all of the guidelines to make sure it fit. I feel as if the tone was neutral,it had viable sources, and it made the requirements for being notable. Is there anything I may have missed? Could you maybe point me in the right direction to where it didn't meet regulations and why? Thanks for your time David. talkDanimajor1988 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to translate it you're welcome (and with the help of others). It is a copy and paste from the German Wikipedia since the page wasn't in the English Wikipedia (but in the German, under the same name). Ich spreche keine deutsch (i speak little german) if that is translated correctly. I have a german vocab but it is not that big so that is why i copied and pasted it and then the browser can translate it to english, that was my thinking anyways. OR instead of translating it should i just have it redirect to the german version and then people can click on translate to english if they'd like? Its your decision, really. and I took out {db-g7}} from the article's code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcfrommn (talk • contribs) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. As I said, I can do the basics of putting the general sketch into idiomatic English. I have only an ordinary graduate student's knowledge of German, but I can do that much, and I like the exercise. I will try to to get the technical vocabulary hopelessly wrong, butorganizational names are always a problem, as it is generally our practice to translate some but not all of them, as many do not have an exact English equivalent. I leave the more knowledgable to fill in the gaps.
Follow-Up to Deletion Review Decision: Peter Pakeman[edit]
Hello. Unfortunately, you may have missed the question in my last message on Dec. 27, 2013 were I asked whether you were able to access the reference [File:North York Rockets Program Insert (August 1987).pdf]. In its decision, the deletion review noted that the reference file was not accessed at all and hence was not included as part of its decision. This reference file was available to the Administrator, Mark, prior to the article going to Deletion Review. Is there anyway, this file can be retrieved and made accessible to the reviewers in order for an informed decision to be made? As previously noted, the subject of the article is confident he'll be able to obtain the needed permission. However, it would be a waist of time for the subject to seek and obtain permission, and then submit it for review if the reference is already accessible within Wiki.Xave2000 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in contact with the subject of the article. Apparently, he's been able to find the reference (proof) he needs. I do not have a copy of the article containing the links-- finding them was a tedious task. Are you able to reproduce the deleted article or email it to me, links and all?Xave2000 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to proposed deletion of Kavi Workspace page[edit]
DGG, thank you for your attention to the Kavi Workspace page. I have removed the proposed deletion notice, but I will of course abide by whatever decisions are made. I have reviewed the guidelines for creating Wikipedia content at some length and feel that I have a solid grasp of the principles. In creating the page, I have tried to emulate and be parallel to other software product pages linked from List of collaborative software. Many parallel pages seem also to lack significant levels of notability, or refer simply to articles generated by press releases or commercial web sites. Projectplace (software), Telligent, and ProtoShare are three of many examples. I have reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Do you have recommendations for how to proceed? Thank you.
MisterPendrake (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGC. These divisions are huge and in terms of revenue and sales are bigger than some companies. Toll is big in Australia, Europe and Asia. I have only really started the articles. I think others will contribute to them.
Toll is really six very different companies using the toll brand. They have achieved their current size by acquiring many smaller companies around the world some of which have wikipedia pages. I believe that the next part of the process is to move the content from these the old articles into one of the six new articles. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_IPEC , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Aviation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Priority are all part of Toll Global Express and this content needs to be migrated to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Global_Express page. So I think that this means that there will be fewer pages in Wikipedia about Toll not more. I know that some Wikipedia editors get overprotective about their work so I am concerned about the reaction that I will get when I suggest on the talk page of these articles that they be effectively closed down and their content moved to the "History" section of the Toll Global Express page. Do you have any advice for best practices in regards to this process? Thanks for the help with the referencing. Regards --PinkAechFas (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would in any case be a good idea to start there, merging the smallest, so I will support you. But please declare any conflict of interest; not that there need be any, for I have cleaned up similar article groups in the same way as you are proposing. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you have done some work on the Toll Global Resources page. We have communicated before and you may remember that I am pretty new to Wiki and I'm learning as I go. Toll is a pretty big company in Australia in that it is widely known and used. There are lots of Toll Wiki pages and some are really old and have out of date information. As we discussed previously it would be much better if there were fewer, pithy Toll pages rather than all the ones that exist at the moment. I think this was your point previously and I agree with you. It would be good to put any current information that exists on the old Aviation, Shipping IPEC pages on the more relevant newer pages and to get rid of the old ones altogether. You may have noticed that I had a go at classifying the pages. I goofed somewhat but I have fixed it over the Christmas break when I had some time. These classifications are a little tricky and I don't really understand why someone would remove the "Companies of New Zealand" from the Toll NZ page, when Toll Group NZ Limited seems to me to very clearly indicate the appropriateness of the category. Do you know why that is? It would good if someone with more experience than me consolidated the Toll pages. Do you have the time and inclination to do so?
Do you know of an editor who might be interested in doing it?
Regards --PinkAechFas (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What pages do you think should be there? The company is large enough we might want to go down one level for clarity, but not beyond that. If we agree, I can do the merge. I think the larger articles can be still clear if written so each company name--especially the overall name-- is written only once or twice in it, as I did last night for Toll Global Resources. You'll see how I handled the subcompany names there. I haven't checked if there are redirects, but if not, you or I can make them. .
For the article I worked on last night, I removed the navbox for Toll Companies because they were listed as well in the see alsos. They should be listed just one place or another, but either will do. Which do you think better? DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for categories, I can not find that we ever had a category Logistics Companies of New Zealand. Are there any other such companies? If not, we usually don't make a category for a single company, but because there is a possibility that there will subsequently be articles on other companies, I can do it
Hi DGG
Thanks for your message. Toll was a fairly small company until the 1990's when it started on an aggressive growth plan based on purchasing other small businesses. In 2012 Toll decided to create six operating divisions to simplify their business. They have rebranded their entire business as "Toll" In a similar way to General_Electric. The most visible aspect of their business to the general community is their trucks and vans on the road so most people have the perception of them as a 'courier company'. Each division has very different operations eg Toll_Global_Express is a
courier business in competition with companies such as Fedex whereas Toll_Global_Resources provides remote area and military base camp support in competition with organisations such as Fluor_Corporation]]. I would certainly not suggest that they are trying to hide some of their
potentially contentious business activities from the public eg military, mining etc. Having said that, I think that it is fair that each of these divisions should have their own Wiki page so that it is clear what this multinational conglomerate does.
I think there should be 7 Toll pages (Toll Group, and Toll Global Forwarding; Toll Global Logistics; Toll Global Resources; Toll Global Express; Toll Domestic Forwarding; and Toll Specialised and Domestic Freight). This is how the company is structured and information from various sources such as news articles readily slots into this structure. This is the structure that the company has stated it intends to use for the foreseeable future.
There are several 'legacy' pages that have been created in the past that I have found on the English Wikipedia. Of these pages I think:
Toll_IPEC content should be reviewed (the timeline can be edited down significantly - it looks like it was simply cut and pasted from a sales brochure). The relevant content could then be moved to Toll_Global_Express
Toll_NZ is part of the Toll_Domestic_Forwarding business unit. In saying that Toll NZ does seem to be important to our Kiwi colleagues. However, if it was kept then it may encourage users in other countries eg Singapore to create their own "local" Toll Group page so maybe it should be
consolidated?
Also just mentioning the name such as TGR once or twice is fine with me. TGR reads better since you made the changes. Removing the duplication from the nav box and See Also is fine with me. I think I prefer what you have done - leaving them listed in the See Also - it is very easy for people to find them and go to them if they want to. At the end of the day I think all
articles should be as reader friendly as possible.
There are categories for logistic companies by country on a Wiki page called Category:Logistics companies by country. I see your point about a cat with one entry but I think there would be others that may be added in time. I think it would be good to have the cat. Also the category that was removed was Category:Companies of New Zealand and there are a number of NZ companies listed. I think the cat Railway companies of New Zealand should if anything be removed because their activities are much broader than rail.
I'll follow your example on the Toll Global Resources page and start editing the others in the same vein. I hope to hear from you again.
Hi DGG or Doug (and anyone in structured finance!),
I commented on Pine River Capital Management through the talk page. I proposed revisiting what fact is asserted as to why the firm is notable and how to arrive at the conclusion that it is notable. I found some better references. Thanks for reviewing. What makes Pine River notable is that it was the first to, in August 2009, launch a $250 million real estate investment trust that was the first to be formed
through a merger with a special purpose acquisition company. http://www.iijournals.com/doi/abs/10.3905/JSF.2009.15.3.073?journalCode=jsf#sthash.8N39Uvww.dpbs
After the housing market and RMBS market fall out, this was a big and rather contrarian play to see Pine River not just invest, but wade in in such a permanent way into the RMBS market. Later, we saw big finance firms follow suit. Thus, Pine River had a seminal impact on the RMBS market from 2009-2014. From an financial academic standpoint this is a page to keep tinkering with. It needs a bit of TLC from structured finance academics.
172.162.49.167 (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now, do you have any good sources that say what you just said about the significance? That's the sort of material we need. I don;t think most of the user will realize the significance unless it's pointed out to them, and we can't say it on the basis of your own original analysis, even if it seems sensible to me. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like most articles probably, this one will need some real digging for the best quotes. I found a few sources off the beaten path-- one of which I found via google scholar.172.162.49.167 (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cite added properly: Thetgyi, Olivia (Fall 2009). "MBS REIT First to be Formed Through SPAC Merger". The Journal of Structured Finance (Institutional Investor Journals) 15 (3): 73–75. doi:10.3905/JSF.2009.15.3.073. Retrieved 6 January 2014, supports the "first MBS REIT" concept. Two other complementary sources support the same. Housingwire is the better of the other two.
I think the issue you might see following press releases relates to churnalism, or an attempt by some journalists who don't really know what to write because they don't really understand the subject, and the result is just a copy of a press release. Here the structured finance community covered a good bit of the subject. The mainstream media did a lackluster job. The most useful coverage actually comes from law firms, which started whole practice areas around the idea. The finance world isn't often innovative, but this is an example of innovation at work. It deserves some interlinking with the REIT and RMBS articles. It's possible that the area of structured finance might lack sufficient coverage on Wikipedia.172.162.49.167 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Slon02's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi there DGG, I wonder if you could just check the Stephen Marks article you tagged with news release when you get time. I’ve removed some bits that I felt might read as extraneous or non NPOV (although the article wasn't written with any POV other than notability by virtue of role/longevity). He does tend to be written up in a certain way from profiles and interviews I could find as source material and – on rereading – that ‘character of the high street’ stuff may have crept in a bit too much. Would appreciate your opinion on any bits that still stand out as needing a rethink. I don't believe Marks should be shifted to Wikinews – after I compiled the page I discovered he was on a Fashion project hitlist of pages needing creation. Should have done this before and have now added the Fashion banner to his talk page so the project can also review. Many thanks.Libby norman (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for making the text of the entry about Andrew Tomas available for review, and for noting this in the Deletion Review. I've added an explanatory note to your comment, so that people can see what the page looked like at the time of the deletion debate. If it's not clear, please let me know, and I'll try to make things clearer. (Because I didn't know the rules properly, I just re-created the article with a brief text so as to spark some debate. Fortunately, User:Coffee put me right, and I shan't make that mistake again, but my ill-informed actions may have inadvertently muddied the waters.) Anyway, thanks for your help with this.
RomanSpa (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
simply thanks a lot, best wishes john de norrona from i phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by John de Norrona (talk • contribs) 18:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I have a good deal more to do there. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David, first off thank you for being a passionate Wikipedia curator.
This is to shortly let you know that I left a reply to your recent nomination and hope you'll reconsider.
Thank you. Ibjennyjenny (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael L.J. Apuzzo[edit]
Hi DGG, I have changed and added sources and references in order to improve the notability. The style has also been changed. And please see the German WP page for comparison. I hope the article now finds your approval. I'm happy to make more adjustments and learn more, thank you. Jacobsflem (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This journal is currently at AFD and the discussion is mainly about whether inclusion in Scopus is sufficient for notability. I have been arguing it is, although I must admit (I think I already told you a while ago) that I think Scopus is getting too all-inclusive to be really regarded as being very selective. The nom is coming with some convincing arguments about this. Of course, the journal is also in PsycINFO, which is fairly selective, although being a "major database" is perhaps debatable. Perhaps you can have a look. --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I hope you're doing well! You've given feedback on my AfC draft a couple times, so I'd be glad for your input on some changes I've made. The main changes I've made since you last commented:
Dropped the entire partnerships section.
Cut down and reorganized the section on Titanium.
Reworded some phrases more straightforwardly: for example, replaced "the company began turning over the management of Titanium's desktop application toolkit to the community" with "Appcelerator...decided to end development of Titanium's desktop application toolkit" and replaced "Appcelerator acquired Nodeable...in order to strengthen its mobile application analytics for enterprise customers" with "Appcelerator bought Nodeable...seeking to strengthen its mobile application analytics offerings.
Looking at not the details but the basic problem, the company seems to be known for one product only and its extensions, and I don't really think it's justified to have two articles. About half the existing article is really about Titanium and could be merged in--the rest could be used as a new section in that article about the company. From the point of view of an encyclopedia, that's the best way. From the pt of view of getting maximum publicity, it might be otherwise. The accepted standard for an article being accepted is a 50% chance of passing AfD. It might pass. I'm not going to accept articles that are technically justified but I think inappropriate. What other people may do is up to them. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'm surprised to hear you have notability objections; I thought you were concerned mainly with point-of-view, style, and so forth. Since you ask, from the standpoint of publicity, it really makes no difference whether there are two articles or one—the information would be the same in either case. And, more importantly, while I personally I think the company and the product are separately notable, I don't think a merged page would do either topic harm. But that leaves the page in an odd bind: you can't approve it because it should be merged, and it can't be merged because it isn't in the mainspace. Is there any way around this? —N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 22:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have found one of the problems in AfC reviewing--it's easier to concentrate on the details. As for the merging, there are several ways, all of them non-obvious. I'm going to approve it, saying I'm approving it for merging. Then I leave it to you to merge the content. Say you are merging in the edit summary. Then change the article on him to a redirect. I'll look in a few days to see if help is needed. If you have additional information on the company at some point, such as if it makes other notable products, you can reverse the merge by yourself. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that seems reasonable. I'll ask for objections on Talk:Appcelerator Titanium first, but I doubt I'll hear any. Generally, I feel paid editors shouldn't edit the mainspace directly (which is why I spent all that time at AfC), but since you'll be keeping an eye out, I think this merge won't be an issue.—N at Appcelerator (my conflict of interest) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG,
I have a problem with an editor who keeps removing maintenance and merge discussion tags from two articles List of songs recorded by Zubeen Garg and Zubeen Garg. I have already reverted these edits once and issued a cautionary note on his/her talk page. But it appears User:Janiinsan is at it again and is also engaging in a little sockpuppetry. I am inclined to revert them again but some of the other edits may be legitimate. And just to make things even more confusing, when you click on the user's about page it takes you to the first of the two articles. Is the user the same person as the subject of the two articles? This looks like a mess and I wanted to get a second opinion before I start making drastic reversions and post a testy warning on his/her talk page. I guess my question is, what the bleep is going on here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This could use a rapid rescue. It was prodded, and I tagged it. Please help if you have time in the next week. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on it at NYPL next Monday. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is something that I can do to expedite this article to become published, please let me know. Many thanks for your time! By the way, JzG sent me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.120.4 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave you some detailed advice on your talk p. User talk:207.151.120.4. I would simply have fixed it myself, but I had difficulties rewriting some of the statements in the article, which were value judgements that would have had to be eliminated if they could not be sourced. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your quick response! I think it would be necessary to eliminate most of the uncited claims. I was not able to find references for those. If possible, please do what you can to get this thing up. Eliminate anything that cannot be published. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.120.4 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider rescinding your request for speedy deletion of Childline South Africa. I reviewed the page when it went through AFC and, call me biased, but I don't think this rises to the level of blatant self-promotion. Note: The "Partnerships" section was created after the article was accepted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag. My apologies, for though we do not have a rule, I think it is usually against the spirit of WP:CSD to speedy an article approved by a reliable WPedian, unless something like undetected copyvio is found. Even if it gets much worse, it can be reverted to the approved state. I do not think personally I would have approved it, but people can differ about things like that, and when they do , speedy is not appropriate. My question now is whether to try to fix it or send it to AfD. I see almost no independent sources (the citations are written in such a way as to obscure that). I'm as concerned about the services section & the overdetailed infobox, but I suppose both can be dealt with. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, My name is Shannon from Ecosia. We had a Wikipedia page you deleted in 2012 (16:31, 4 November 2012 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Ecosia (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)). Quite a long article exists in German (albeit with many inaccuracies), and we wanted help create the English entry again, obviously as neutrally as possible, but we're not sure how to have it reviewed before posting something that doesn't meet the guidelines/standards. How can we check what we'd like to submit? Thanks! --EcosiaSearch (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article in the deWP. I see the article there is more up-to-date, but otherwise similar to what you submitted here. What you need to do is write so as to emphasize less the virtues of being able to contribute to a good environmental cause when using the service, and making much less detail about just to what extent you are green. The way I look at it, the article has to be addressed to the general public, not prospective users.
Unfortunately, I am uncertain whether or not any article on the service will be judged notable--it is a rather small company based on the value of the 80% charitable contributions & by implications the profit. The enWP does not consider Alexa rank in judging notability. If you are associated with the firm, as seems to be the case, the recommended route for making an article is to use WP:AFC according to our WP:COI policy, which is different from that of the German WP and I think also from most of the Scandinavian WPs. In particular, you may not use a corporate user name here--you have to use some made-up user name, or clearly individual name, , and say on the user page the account is being used by someone affiliated with the company. ( I agree it makes no sense whatsoever, but it is a firm policy here.) Good luck with it. I shall let the community judge. DGG ( talk ) 11:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate your thoughts on my feedback - if you concur or I have overstated things. You are more experienced with AfC than me. My intention is not to put the editor off. Your insights would be welcome. Thanks Span (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this--it will take a while to give a complete response, and even so, I rather doubt the other editor will be satisfied. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get the sense they are fairly new at this and are genuinely interested in feedback. Span (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I built a page called Premier Financial Bancorp, it was deleted for it was like advertisement. It's my fault and I want to modify it. Could you please userfy it for me? Thank you! ReganChai (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I am wishing to retrieve the article Joey Ciccone so that I can edit it to make it acceptable. Thank you.
Knockonwood (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
commented on your user page. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have two suggestions: first, you could show the integrity of your editing by rewriting Michael Jay Moon around the only actual item clearly making for notability, his book, eliminating the promotional links and other puffery. Second, & only if you choose to, perhaps you can explain to me the basis on which you choose your topics. (That's entirely optional on your part -- nobody here has the right to ask who someone else actually is, directly or by implication. Just ignore the request if you like--I won't ask again.) .
After you do Moon, take a look at the others. I am deliberately not nominating many of them for deletion yet, in order to first gauge the feeling of the community and give you a chance to respond, as you are doing . I have deliberately not started fixing the fixable ones yet, to give you a chance to improve them DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I will rework the Moon page and make my way through the others. As far as my process for choosing topics, there's no secret there. Right now, I'm taking care of small child at home, and find I have a bit more than the usual time to spend online during the day, so I read a lot. When I'm reading a news item or a tech article that interests me (a lot of tech articles, the reason why I have done a lot pages on tech startups), I start doing research. Wikipedia is usually where I turn first, and when the bigger names associated with the news I'm reading isn't there, I do the work myself. I tend to dig as deep as possible, finding out any details surrounding the subject, which I think has lead to my being noticed as to supplying perhaps too much information on my pages. Amsterdad (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG,
I saw your name in here so I am asking for your help. I have nominated E.coli for the good article but I would be very much glad if you can put some light on phylogeny chart issue mentioned in Talk:Escherichia coli/GA1. Thanks RRD13 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just wandering around aimlessly, I noticed that some time ago you had engineered a badly-needed AfD on Success Academy Charter Schools. The same editor maintains the related article on Eva Moskowitz in a similar state. Probably, engaging with him is useless. So, what's the appropriate thing to do in this situation? --JBL (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
by precedent. members of the City Council in NYC and Chicago are generally notable. So the problem is the excessive length & detail of the article. As the ed. is not a single purpose editor for her or the group, but one with general interests and many excellent contrtibutions, I would not assume they would be unwilling to discuss. But in general the first step would be reducing it to size (I've made a minimal start at this--I think this is usually best done stepwise, explaining each step.) ; it will probably be reverted. If so the second step should be nominating it for AfD on the grounds that it is excessively promotional and unfixable, and must be deleted and started over. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --JBL (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I built a page called Premier Financial Bancorp, it was deleted for it was like advertisement. It's my fault and I want to modify it. Could you please userfy it for me? Thank you! ReganChai (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Pugh (Fellow Consultant) 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. LizRead!Talk! 19:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I commented , thanks.~
(NOTE: It was kept as NO CONSENSUS). I will renominate. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I've been thinking about this. The CSD might in fact have had some merit, even if only as a test case. As far as I can see, no species are currently linked to Aa as a binomial authority on any of the various languages Wikipedias. Aa might appear to fail WP:GNG, despite being a named binomial authority. Do you think it would be too WP:POINTy to start an AfD? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he is on the list of abbreviations, then there are species; my understanding is that the abbreviations are not assigned otherwise. It's just a matter of doing the work. I will ask the ed. who submitted the article, because it wasn't good practice to do such a skimpy job of it: entering names from such an index without doing more is not acceptable--it's like adding articles from an index of towns without adding some sort of identification. I think it has been definitely established that describing a species is sufficient for notability,. If someone should insist I can fit it within the GNG, because there are always subsequent works on the group of organisms discussing the species. (I used to make similar arguments regularly, before WP:PRIOF was so definitively accepted) The effort spent in an AfD would be better spent in doing the work. The relevant task force can be asked to do it if the orginal ed. doesn;t. Botany is not my specialty, but I can give it a try in a week or two. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the material, but I still have to forma it properly. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you, but I was forced to remove the proposed deletion tag from this article. It had already been proposed for deletion on October 28, 2008 and the deleted was contested (the editor contesting it also left a note on the article's discussion page which clued me into the previous de-prod). I can't delete it as a proposed deletion, but I doubt it will survive AfD if you want to bring it there. Just letting you know, thanks. -- Atama頭 17:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article is an odd one, WellStar Health System. It looks like a quasi-disambiguation page. -- Atama頭 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching it; Probably I'm going to try a merge of the content from the individual articles. There's a problem with articles on such health-care systems in general. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG: Since you have accepted this article, shouldn't you at least rewrite the parts outside the quotation, which are not the same as the original gazetteer entry and have prominent copyright notices? Or have they just copied that text too from another older source? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll go back and fix it. thanks for noticing. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am posting this reply to your reply concerning an article that was deleted. Can you tell me where I can find a copy of the deleted article so I can paste it back into the Articles for Creation section in order to begging making changes? I have the original text, but I do not wish to lose the citation formatting. It took so long to create.
Here is the reply I tried to post to your talk page but it may have ended up on APERSON's talk page:
Thank You First, let me thank you for your response. I appreciate your willingness to help me reshape this article. I respect you all for providing this public service. I welcome your help in getting this draft in acceptable shape so that it may be published one day soon. I did not realize that I needed to check in to see the status of the article after APERSON approved it for posting on January 7. I know better now. Let me get back to work on improving this article so it may be published on WIKI.
Why I Drafted the Article Few American graphic design/branding studios survive as long as CSA has. When their 35th anniversary book was published in 2012, I reviewed their book in Communication Arts (I am paid by CA, of course). Other design agencies with which I am familiar (but not personally or professionally connected) have asked me if I could author a WIKI article but, until CSA asked for my help, I had never attempted it. As a long-time contributor to Communication Arts Magazine, I have had the occasion to meet many creative professionals, Ken Carbone among them. Their 35+ year run sets them apart from most. Over the decades they have created some of the most memorable identities and way-finding systems for some of the most respected and visited cultural institutions in the world (more interesting to me than their work for big Fortune 500 companies, but that is my prejudice). I regard them as among the top-ranked communication arts/design agencies in the US. For that reason, I decided to try to place an article about them.
Highest Honor in American Design Since I submitted the article back in December 2013, CSA was selected for the highest honor of our profession…. The AIGA Medal. Only the best of the best are chosen to be an AIGA Medalist. People like Paul Rand, Saul Bass, Ivan Chermayeff, etc. As a journalist who has had the honor to cover creative professionals for many years, CSA, I felt, "deserved" to have a WIKI page.
Citing Peers and Third-Party Publications When writing the story, I reviewed ten or more existing WIKI articles about their peers (Steven Heller, Stefan Sagmeister, Massimo Vignelli, Pentagram) and sought to emulate the key subject headings (History, Education, Current, Clients) and then researched every notable mention in third-party sources that spoke to their history and excellence. One source is the AIGA archives which help establish their notability and presence among the leading design agencies in the US. The Dialog book was one my principal resources, but I did cite others, including FastCompany, Business News, Communication Arts, and other design industry online publications/sources such as Design Matter, Felt+Wire, AIGA's website, that cover notable designers. Perhaps I offered too many. The "name-dropping" suggestion by your earlier is one I can understand upon further reflection. To help establish how "important" they are, I quote other notable designers like Massimo Vignelli who are on WIKI and who have something to say about CSA. I am not averse to deleting any or all of them from the article.
Citing "Dialog" Book One point you made in your earlier comment was that I drew from their archive — that was not wholly accurate. I did quote from the book celebrating they 35th anniversary. This is nettlesome because the book, while not self-published, obviously involved their participation. I strived not to use adjectives and adverbs celebrating their accomplishments contained in the book but rather used only historical information from it (e.g. their selection in1986 as the signage/wayfinding designers for the Louvre which catapulted them to national acclaim). I can cull that article of direct quotes from the two principals and minimized the use of reference to that book about the company. It will diminish the historical context but I am more than willing to do what I can to get the article in acceptable shape to publish. Please advise me on whether or not I can quote them from that book (which I reference about 8 times but can minimize) or if I can interview them directly and quote from my own interview with them.
Conflict of Interest To clarify a few things for the WIKI editorial review team: I am not personal friends with the subject (Ken Carbone and his partner Leslie Smolan) nor have I ever worked for them for hire. I repeat, I have not and will not accept financial renumeration from them. I know that is ethically out of bounds and I would like to feel that I can write other articles about other leading designers and studios in the future that are not compromised by conflict of interest. Right now, my interest in work with you, DGG, on getting that article revised so that you and your editor peers will accept it. This is a learning process for me. And it has been quite an education. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porterwritewiki (talk • contribs) 15:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the deleted version to User:Porterwritewiki/Carbone Smolan Agency for improvement. I've moved it there to avoid confusion with earlier versions elsewhere. It cannot stay there long. I'll make some additional suggestions on your user talk page in a few hours. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know, your decline to restore at WP:REFUND#NERA Economic Consulting was restored by the admin who deleted it, and another admin nominated the article for deletion at AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for letting me know. I commented. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you submit the article again after that 1 small edit was made on the article between then and when User:FoCuSandLeArN declined it? It didn't address the decline rationale. —Mysterytrey 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You pop up quite often on my watchlist, too. 01:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
because I am in the process of rewriting a small amount of possibly copyvio material, and adding details of her books, and I then intend to accept the article. Since she meets the standard of WP:PROF Criterion 5, there is a very great likelihood that it will pass AfD, & this is a type of article I'm rather familiar with.
when I come upon an article I intend to fix and improve, if I'm sure I can get to it immediately, I sometimes accept and then rewrite--but I only do that if I can do the editing immediate. In this case, I wasn't quite sure, so I did my alternatively technique, submit and then rewrite; In this case there was indeed a some things yesterday in my life and I didn't get to it; I may not today either, but I certainly expect to by Tuesday. (possibly in cases like this I should submit, mark as reviewing, and then rewrite.), Frankly, I only bother with the whole AfC overhead in order to order not to disrupt whatever stats & categories the system produces; otherwise, I would just move to mainspace and then edit out all the AfC-specific stuff, or edit and then move.
BTW, as for the earlier decline, I intend to follow up on that because I think the reason was wrong. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you submit the article again after that 1 small edit was made on the article between then and when User:FoCuSandLeArN declined it? It didn't address the decline rationale. —Mysterytrey 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You pop up quite often on my watchlist, too. 01:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
because I am in the process of rewriting a small amount of possibly copyvio material, and adding details of her books, and I then intend to accept the article. Since she meets the standard of WP:PROF Criterion 5, there is a very great likelihood that it will pass AfD, & this is a type of article I'm rather familiar with.
when I come upon an article I intend to fix and improve, if I'm sure I can get to it immediately, I sometimes accept and then rewrite--but I only do that if I can do the editing immediate. In this case, I wasn't quite sure, so I did my alternatively technique, submit and then rewrite; In this case there was indeed a some things yesterday in my life and I didn't get to it; I may not today either, but I certainly expect to by Tuesday. (possibly in cases like this I should submit, mark as reviewing, and then rewrite.), Frankly, I only bother with the whole AfC overhead in order to order not to disrupt whatever stats & categories the system produces; otherwise, I would just move to mainspace and then edit out all the AfC-specific stuff, or edit and then move.
BTW, as for the earlier decline, I intend to follow up on that because I think the reason was wrong. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted, thinking it was a simple CSD A1 job, but as it reloaded the page it said that it was deleted. When I saw you were mid-deletion/restoration I decided to call it a night and signed off as well. I'll give it a thorough look at about 4pm UTC today. James086Talk 10:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's now copyvio free. A curiosity I've noticed is that the AMU history web page uses links to Wikipedia articles as the article did. It might have been copied from Wikipedia (making it an unreliable source) although it is unattributed. Some of the content in the article is more than a decade old so it's possibly older than the AMU webpage. I'm going on holiday tomorrow for a week but when I return I'll add more content to the article as it is sorely lacking now. James086Talk 20:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell who copied whom. As far as I know the material is reasonably accurate though considerably ideological--and quite incomplete for the later period, making it only a very rough paraphrase, to the extent that none of it would be copyvio (It's a little difficult to change the series of ideas in a chronological history) , but it wouldn't solve the problem of citing. Routine facts about the history of a university can be taken from their web site, but this is overly interpretive. I took a few dates from there, but one of the dates was hard to interpret and I'd need to check with other sources. The problem extends to other articles--those about the founder and related entities. They all share the same text. This is a research project, and I do not really have the time for it What I can do , and routinely do for universities, is to expand the academic courses section a little. I'll wait for you , though. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG: When I found this page at first I assumed that this was a notable professor and started to look for sources. The first one I found was [THIS]. Does this make him more or less notable? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More so, but it will be rather tricky to write a proper article. As you will see, I've started rewriting, but this is one of the situations where it will be necessary to verify the degrees claimed, as no trust may be placed in their web site. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG: I came across this old Afc submission, but I'm not having any luck figuring out if he's notable. Want to try? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
nor am I sure. Some of the various Swiss business schools and their faculty are difficult to judge. I think this needs a more general discussion, and I am trying to decide whether to send to MfD, or accept and send to AfD. It will get more attention at AfD, but doing it that way is a rather unusual route. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My impressions is that it is basically promotionalism & I would even consider G11
It gives indications of copypaste, is particular the large unsourced paragraphs.
the term is devised by Ryan, & my feeling is that it is probably a trivial variant, but this is a field laden by such & things I think ridiculously trivial variants have sometimes been taken seriously.
It would need a check of textbooks etc to see is his approach is generally recognized as distinctive.
It would need check of all the refs to see whether they are actually about his variant or whether the term is used generically--in a sense, most therapies have or think they have a structure.
key quote from the article: "however as of yet academic studies in this promising area are still relatively sparse" implies the 3 & 4 cannot be met.
Doesn't the APA have a WP working group of some sort? DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,DGG I really need your help with reference to Felix Tataru page. I need to recreate it and I need to know what was wrong. Felix Tataru is Senior Vice President of International Advertising Association IAA Board of Directors, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Advertising_Association. I was carefull to have notable sources for the uploadeed content. Could it be a problem the fact that sources were in Romanian? would it be a solution to edit first other pages on Wikipedia whith activities related to Felix Tataru? Cristina Butunoi (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Cristina Butunoi[reply]
There are two questions: can an article be written on him, and is the present article acceptable.
A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If you have such sources, it may be possible to rewrite the article; otherwise, it will not be possible to write an acceptable article. There are two problems with your sources; I notice almost all your sources come from industry blog, and some from the online versions of industries newsletters. This are not in general reliable sources, because they publish every press release that gets sent to them, without serious editorial control. An examination of some of them indicates that what they are publishing is indeed press releases. The second problem is that most of them are about his company, not him. This can be hard to distinguish for advertising agencies, but you would probably have more success writing an article about the agency. And I point out that being vice-president of an organization is never notable. And in a biography everything must be referenced--his political work was not.
A Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. Don't include material that would better belong in a web page, such as minor information about his ctivities that would interest nobody but his family.
Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients/purchasers/students/supporters/donors--that sort of content is considered promotional.
As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. And keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, which are usually more expansive. I cannot insist on your telling me whether you are a paid editor, but I wonder why you "need" to recreate it.
If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity, and for the presence of sources that show notability. The best way of rewriting is to use the WP:Article Wizard, which will guide you towards an acceptable article if one is possible.
And one warning: Do not add material about him to other web pages. That is considered spamming, and people who do that are generally blocked.
Again, my best advice is to write an article on the company. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. It is very much appreciate it. I understand what you say about the style, but I do not understand about the sources. There aren't any blogs or online newsletters. Most of them are online versions of business newspapers and magazines in Romania. I may have been wrong about it as I did not include the author and the complete name of the article when I cited. I also understand that being a vice-presinde of an organziation is not notable, but being a president of a global organization is considerend a notable information? As he will become president in 2016 because elected Senior vice president automaticaly becomes its president of the future mandate. Would not this be a reason enough to have this profile now? As regards the conflict of interest, I transparently showed my identity. I work for the companby and I thought it would be usefull to have this profile before an important international congress taking place next week. Cristina Butunoi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what you say, the article is fixable. I will take another look tomorrow in more detail. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:California_Ukraine_02.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvani_Lithuania_05.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvani_Lithuania_04.jpg){kind=link}
