User talk:DGG/Archive 119 Dec. 2016

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

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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


RDX[edit]

Hi,

You recently deleted my page RDX Inc. Let me tell you about this. I was trying to move rdx sports to rdx inc and didn't know about move page function. So I created a separate page RDX Inc which was empty page and try to to move rdx sports to rdx inc that page, which I think you figure out speedy deletion of page. That's why confusion raised. Please make my rdx Inc page live.


Swoon Editions[edit]

This page was speedily deleted, and I wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference and improvement, I am contacting you the deleting administrator for this, please. I was not clear there was a previous draft and of this page and both contents should be merged to create a fuller page with more references for re-review, Thanks CiaranR (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]


Jeffrey Collé[edit]

Recently this Draft was removed from the Wiki. I was going to contest, but like the section said it was subject to be removed at any point after that flag was put on it. I was wondering if you would be able to provide the material as it was deleted, and I would like to completely rewrite the content. If it sounded too advertisey (if that's even a word) it was not the intention so I would like to clean it up. Thanks! Lmarotz (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

hi DGG, you added an advert tag to this article some time ago, and i've worked on improving the article since autumn - added content, sources, slightly changed the style. as i wrote parts of the initial article and now edited it, i think it is not ok to remove the advert tag myself. could you please take a look at the article and remove the tag if you find it appropriate, or please give some advice, what could be further improved? thanks! Becomingx7 (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Standard Finance[edit]

Hi DGG, were my answers adequate on this? Let me know if you need any more info/clarification. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I know you're busy so just let me know if there's anything I can do on the draft in the meantime. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NYX Cosmetics[edit]

I went over the article in question, and sourced all statements to apparently reliable sources, while removing anything that sounded promotional. I would appreciate it if you would take another look at the article. Edison (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this will have to be tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Edison (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
closed as non-consensus on Dec 21


Request on 15:17:49, 1 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sam Perkins[edit]


Hi, David -- Thanks for the feedback. In light of your comments, I substantially cut and condensed the Matt Rizai entry. Thanks for having another look. Please let me know if I've addressed the issues you raised. Please note that the sources cited are independent, reliable and published. - Sam

Update: I'm adding more sourcing. I'll repost when I'm done. My apologies!

Sam Perkins (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

awaiting re-review DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unilever Brands problem![edit]

This is the problem of the article List of Unilever brands. It is not use of en dash of some brands in Unilever article brands!!! cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 08:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page watcher)  Fixed: I corrected the article by changing the em dashes to en dashes (diff). Cheers, North America1000 12:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers to you!!! cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 02:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Nestle Bear Brand[edit]

Good-faith, this is the international branding of Bear Brand Gold to this article. It's good to get the more notabilities. cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 07:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am having difficulty in understanding you. Do you want me to do something, and if so what,? (Or can anyone reading this help me here?). And, Cyrus noto3at bulaga, what exactly is your connection to the company, if any? DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I guess this has something to do with your edit here where you removed excessive detail, but it's still not clear what the poster is after! S/he seems to specialise in editing articles on brand names. PamD 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you can do with? Bear Brand is marketed by over 10 countries. It is a popular milk brand of Nestlé. cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 02:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if you get a kitten, you edit Nestle Bear Brand. So, goodluck! cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option Alpha deletion[edit]

Would like more information about the speedy deletion of Option Alpha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_Alpha

Seems like an unjustified deletion, even with the creation by the banned user. Still has notability, user value, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjkelly (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user who started the article was one of a group of sockpuppets writing promotional articles both for their own books, and for a number of companies, almost certainly in violation of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure . If you think the firm is notable, and if you have no WP:Conflict of Interest, you could start an article, preferably in Draft space using WP:Articles for Creation. Buyt be sure you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements; in the dleted article, the references are either things the principal has written himself, or write-ups from unreliable blogs-- not single one was from a major newspaper or magazine. Regarless of who created it, it would have been deleted. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand on the sockpuppets − I realize the impact these users have on the veracity of WP. However, all of the references therein are relevant, prominent publications within the niche industry at hand, option trading; e.g. Investing.com, SmartPassiveIncome.com, OptionsOdds.com. To my knowledge none of the references are written by the principal (one Kirk Du Plessis). Alternately, the competing educational services − which provides very similar trading resources − has a presumably non-problematic WP page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeKing).
Banner user aside, the Option Alpha wiki provides valid, user-friendly content and pulls from legitimate sources. I would still maintain that this is cause for reconsideration of speedy deletion.

Andyjkelly (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not restore promotional articles by sockpupetts. If you think the references will hold up, you can try to write an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks for your swift responses. Andyjkelly (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources?[edit]

David, what do you think of this edit? --Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

utterly absurd. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would like some assistance[edit]

There's a fairly-new editor - User :Usman Khalil - who is trying his best to follow WP's rules & guidelines about doing some paid-editing. He has been very open to adjusting his editing and placing the proper COI notices onto his edits etc. I came across his edits on Frederick Achom a while back and have been mentoring him from time to time. I would appreciate it muchly if you could maybe keep an eye on his edits & his talk page. I am concerned that he will inadvertently run afoul of some rule and get blocked or whatever. My most recent thread on his talk page is User talk:Usman Khalil#WP: PAID - I posted how I thought he should proceed going forward and just wanted to make sure that this was correct. Thanks & cheers - Shearonink (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
still pending DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected[edit]

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, see here. DGG, I'd be interested to hear your views on this - I think this is the most coverage an edit-a-thon has ever had. Reviewing the articles created would be an interesting exercise. Though many are being created on other language Wikipedias. Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
from the relatively small list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/29 I identified one entry I consider really dubious, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabia Salihu Sa'id; I may nominate a few others, where only the publicity for the BBC list makes for notability. I very strongly support adding notable women to WP,and there are thousands of them without having to add the non-notable ones to fill an imagined quota. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are more. Not sure how many in en-Wikipedia, but the claims were 400+ across all Wikipedias. I added 11 more and someone just added another one. See here. There will be more. 138 pages here. Some haven't had the BLP category added. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A late follow-up. It looks like the total number for en-Wikipedia was around 200 articles and drafts here. Surely enough there to consider now and to draw some new conclusions of some sort? Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to be patient...[edit]

Perhaps you can have a look at User talk:JzG#Academic journal AfDs. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in process DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point[edit]

David, not sure you're following Guy's talkpage, but I think he has a point here. What do you think? --Randykitty (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he does not, and I've explained why, DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a look at this[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination) and this connected diff. --Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please! Can you believe Wikipedia was declaring that a journal was notable because it had an impact factor of 1?!?! jps (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
closed as non-consensus on Dec23.

A kitten for you![edit]

Your help with our Black Lunch Table editathon was very much appreciated! Thanks!

Heathart (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Lucky Me![edit]

So, you can improve the article due the lack of notability. -- cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 09:17, December 13, 2016

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isolation Techniques (Individual)[edit]

Please clarify your comment as indicated.--Penbat (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biocentric Universe merge - procedural question[edit]

Hi, I was involved in the AfD discussion of biocentric universe. The result was Merge to Robert Lanza. One of the other editors, who was arguing for Delete, blanked the page and made it a redirect to Robert Lanza, which I understand. However, since the AfD result was Merge, not Delete, today I chose a greatly reduced selection of material from the article and incorporated it into Robert Lanza to create this version: [1]. This included eight additional references, including adding references that are critical of the biocentric-universe hypothesis. Nine minutes later, the same editor reverted my addition, citing UNDUE. (Please note that a subsequent re-addition by an IP user was not me, which I encourage you to check.)

Is this how a Merge is supposed to work? It seems like this editor took it upon him/herself to change your Merge decision to a straight Delete decision, and having already reverted the IP editor's re-addition, is now edit-warring. You wrote in the AfD decision, "The opinions are irreconcilable, and further discussion will not clarify anything. In such a case, the compromise solution has advantages." This editor is refusing to compromise. Any clarification on this case would be appreciated. -Jordgette [talk] 21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no , it is not how it is supposed to work., but it's been known to happen. It happens frequently enough that it has a name "smerge" (for "submerge") The closing admin unfortunately has no right to actually control content in such cases, no moe than any other editor--it's one of the gaps of the system. But I'll see what I can do. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(by talk page stalker) Might it not be a good idea for Jordgette to get the eyes of more editors involved? If an incipient edit war is forming, I have found that starting a Request for Comments or asking for a third opinion on the destination talk page sometimes helps. I hope sticking my $0.02 in here was OK. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year[edit]

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 08:49, December 14, 2016

Can you take a look at this please?[edit]

Hi there  :-) Can you please take a look at this page Taimoor Rehman Siddiqui? I don't want to run in to 3RR issues but the creator keeps removing speedies & deleting everything on his talk page. Help?  :-) (Saw you doing other pages so figured you were awake & might have a spare moment.) JamesG5 (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, protected against recreation, and user blocked. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
YTMND!  :-) JamesG5 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Explore article[edit]

hey. at the AfD you said you think there is a way to edit the article that will make clear how flakey it is; something about listing the titles of the top-cited article or something. I would be interested to see what that would like if you would be interesting in doing that. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The silly thing is, I would really like to have a neutral article on this. People keep citing it on Wikipedia (not often, but enough that I have to check every couple of weeks) and a properly neutral article that made clear just how fringe it is - as if a glance at the cover were not enough - would be a boon. The problem is that I simply cannot find the sources. Science, in the main, simply ignores obvious bollocks. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give it a try later today. DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

email[edit]

Hi, I saw from my alerts that you sent me an email, but I haven't received it (this is the second time a Wikipedia email has failed to come through, don't know why). I'll send you a blank email so you can respond directly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please ignore, I've found it misfiled by my email client Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats[edit]

You and Brad both on ArbCom. This is a Good Thing. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost mail[edit]

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Go Phightins! 00:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom[edit]

I would just like to say how genuinely pleased I am that your services have been retained again. I just hope that another 2 years in that irrenhaus won't drive you bonkers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (plus Wikipedia Day on Jan 15!)[edit]

Wednesday December 21, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This will be the holiday party! Celebrate a December holiday with us, or in wiki-fashion, edit the calendar itself and join us to celebrate any holiday of your choice regardless of when it usually happens.

Featuring special guest presentations on structure data, university library meetups, metrics and reporting, and other topics.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities.

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

After the main meeting, savory and sweet pies and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfC[edit]

Hi. Have just gotten back to reviewing articles at AfC. Is there a new process for checking for copyvios? When I was last reviewing, Earwig's program had become unreliable. Onel5969 TT me 23:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, and the copyvio bot has still been working excellently for me (I believe it was fixed afterwards). SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ST. I thought it had been as well, but I got the exact same 1% on 4 straight articles, so I suspected it might still b broken. Onel5969 TT me 13:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion with no explanaiton. Re-doing page. What must I do?[edit]

Hello,

Yesterday I wrote an article for "John D. Chisholm" and it was marked for speedy deletion. I tried to contest the deletion and make modifications to the article. I also left messages on the talk page requesting information on how the article should be changed. I didn't hear anything back before the article was deleted.

I am going to write the article again, making absolutely certain list only facts that can be corroborated from a verifiable online source. I would please like some feedback before it is marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clkndggr (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your current version is better, but you need to emphasize the key factor in showing him notable , which is his book. Find some reviews, and add them as references. don't quote from the reviews, though. Just list them. The patents are only significant if they have been substantially exploited. As for style, try replacing most of the "Chisholm"s with "he". Try to avoid constructions like "would receive" or the like. Put references in the form specified by WP:REFBEGIN. If it has been published in a publication like a journal, use cite journal, not cite web. Include vol., year, and page when possible.
When ready, enter it as a Draft, using the WP:Article Wizard, and it will be reviewed before going into main space. That will give it a better chance. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Design deletion[edit]

Hello DGG, I am the originator of the Transition Design wiki page, which I believe you deleted a few weeks ago. The article was, I think, originally posted in 2013 and required many additions/updates, I have now completely rewritten it and reorganised into a draft version. I have been a bit remiss in not keeping it updated to reflect activities and developments over the last few years. I hope to repost the article in the next few days, but am unsure if it is better (and indeed possible) to repost the original Transition Design article, or whether to create a new entry for this updated version. Please could you advise.

I have, I hope, addressed the various arguments that were made in favour of the article's deletion, although, not being an experienced Wikipedia user, I am now having difficulty in tracking down these comments and ensuring they have all been addressed. Contrary to some of the comments, to mention just a few things (which will be given more detail in the article) Transition Design is not simply a Phd strand in a design school developed by a single professor, it is an idea that originated in 2005 in Ireland, and in recent years has become a major part of all levels of the Carnegie Mellon design curriculum, where it is being taught and researched by multiple professors; it has now been incorporated into multiple design curriculums and research labs all over the world; several partnerships have been made between universities for the research and development of Transition Design; there have been two international Transition Design symposiums, one in Pittsburgh and one in Devon, UK, involving academics from many universities as well as practitioners and researchers, and there will be a third symposium in a few months in Barcelona; many keynote talks on the subject have been given at conferences organized by universities and professional and research associations; dozens of invited lectures and workshops have been given all over the world; many papers by different people have been published on the subject, including multiple peer reviewed papers; and it is also finding its way into design practice having been taken up by the AIGA, the largest organization for professional designers in the USA with 26,0000 members (here is a link to their page the AIGA 'A Complete Primer on Transition Design, http://www.aiga.org/what-is-transition-design )

The deletion of the article has created a good opportunity for completely reworking it and bringing it up to date, and I hope this version meets Wikipedia criteria. Neodig (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article might be m=possible,but what you have written in your user space is advocacy, not neutral description. You need to say what it is, not why it is important. As a start, I'd suggest aiming at 1/3 the current length. My experience here is that articles on new intellectual movements iare much more likely to suceed in proportion to the brevity.
More particularly 1/ most of the history section belongs, much abbreviated, at the end, in a section on "Education in transition design". the only part that really belongs in "history" is the section on initial development. And do not list the speakers or speaker affiliations at a conference. 2/ don't use jargon,neither educational jargon in general nor jargon specific to the field.3/ Write in plain descriptive prose, not the sort of rhetoric suitable for an argument. There are a number of use of the construction "not only" or the equivalent. These should be taken as warning signs that the surrounding material is argument. Watch out also for phrases like "Transition Design argues...." or "Transition design identifies ..." Try to omit introductory phrases and get right to the topic. 4./ the "Transition Design Framework ("section is inappropriate repletion and over-detai. I know you like it, but it's the sort of prose that would go into a graduate program description or the introduction to a textbook. 5./ There's too much about the Carnegie Mellon University program. Its detailed description belongs in its program description on its own web site. 6/ Try not to use sentence fragments in a bulleted list. That's powerpoint style, not encyclopedic writing. 7/ See WP:REFBEGIN for our standard reference format. While other forms are accepted, they give the impression that it is material from elsewhere re-purposed for WP. 7/Do not repeat references as external links.They belong as one or the other. 8/Try not to refer to unpublished material such as lecture notes. 8/ Do not use strings of references at the end ofg a sentence. That's appropriate for academic writing, not a general encyclopedia. 9./ If you have any professional relationship to the topic or CMU, declare it on your user page and the article talk page.
When ready, please enter it as a Draft. It would be better for someone other than me to review it. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 December[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Solodev for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solodev 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/Solodev 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. – Joe (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:39:36, 21 December 2016 review of submission by Sswebsmith[edit]


Hi,

I would just like some advice on the article to try and improve it for approval?

Thanks

the main thing you need to have are substantial independent 3rd party references about the firm from reliable sources, not press releases or mere notices, published in major magazines of newspapers or books. The references that you have are from local newspapers and trade journals , but these tend to not be entirely independent , but based upon the firm's press releases. If you can find them, improve the draft and resubmit. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Transition Design Page[edit]

Hello DGG, I am the originator of the Transition Design wiki page, which I believe you deleted a few weeks ago. The article was, I think, originally posted in 2013 and required many additions/updates, I have now completely rewritten it and reorganised into a draft version. I have been a bit remiss in not keeping it updated to reflect activities and developments over the last few years. I hope to repost the article in the next few days, but am unsure if it is better (and indeed possible) to repost the original Transition Design article, or whether to create a new entry for this updated version. Please could you advise.

I have, I hope, addressed the various arguments that were made in favour of the article's deletion, although, not being an experienced wikipedia user, I am now having difficulty in tracking down these comments and ensuring they have all been addressed. Contrary to some of the comments, to mention just a few things (which will be given more detail in the article) Transition Design is not simply a Phd strand in a design school developed by a single professor, it is an idea that originated in 2005 in Ireland, and in recent years has become a major part of all levels of the Carnegie Mellon design curriculum, where it is being taught and researched by multiple professors; it has now been incorporated into multiple design curriculums and research labs all over the world; several partnerships have been made between universities for the research and development of Transition Design; there have been two international Transition Design symposiums, one in Pittsburgh and one in Devon, UK, involving academics from many universities as well as practioners and researchers, and there will be a third symposium in a few months in Barcelona; many keynote talks on the subject have been given at conferences organized by universities and professional and research associations; dozens of invited lectures and workshops have been given all over the world; have been many papers by different people have been published on the subject, including multiple peer reviewed papers; and it is also finding its way into design practice having been taken up by the AIGA, the largest organization for professional designers in the USA with 26,0000 members (here is a link to their page A Complete Primer on Transition Design, http://www.aiga.org/what-is-transition-design )

The deletion of the article has created a good opportunity for completely reworking it and bringing it up to date, and I hope this version meets Wikipedia criteria. Neodig (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ihope to get there this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC[edit]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure[edit]

…what more I can say to be allowed the chance to review. It seems I am being judged before solid evidence is in place. I not ignorant of the things suggested, nor do I harbour designs for things, outside the pale, as suggested. I was, as I have repeatedly said, drawn to the possibility of AfC work, by Robert's example. Have you seen his work, and his comments made in reviewing? This is the model being rejected, as much as anything else. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already advised you, that what you should do is participate in AfD and Deletion Review discussion. This will enable you to se by example what the actual standards are for accepting articles, based on the fundamental WP:NO DEADLINE-- that WP is a work in progress, and that articles are expected to be less than satisfactory at the beginning, but to be able to be improved--the rule for deletion is deliberately worded unsourceable, rather than currently unsourced. This will also give you the opportunity to explain your desire for higher standards, and you might be able to convince people enough to change the consensus. You can also continue to indicate problems with articles--it is important to indicate articles that need improvement, so people will be able to identify them and work on them. Most important, you yourself can work on adding sources to articles that need it, and clarifying footnotes where there are only general references. The development of the encyclopedia depends upon people who are willing to fix problems even more than it does on people who indicate them. I and many other try to always make at least some minor improvement when we look at an article for whatever reason.
Over the years, I have often held different positions than the consensus, sometimes very sharply different, but I have always stated them as opinions, as in an AfD discussion. I think it would be altogether wrong to use them as a judgement. When I encounter a situation where I am called on to make a decision, and I disagree so sharply with what I know to be the standard view that I consider it hypocritical to state it, I pass over that item and let someone else judge.
Nor am I going to give quick judgements here about other people's work. But it is customary in all human groups for established people to sometimes be able to do exceptional things that less established people cannot. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I am not interested in AfD and Deletion Review, and it is no one's place but mine to determine where I expend effort. I am pushing for a final, fair decision to work with Robert at AfC. Please rejoin that discussion, at that page. If rejecting me, you are also rejecting the example of those I have indicated as literal role models and mentors (including Robert, yourself, and Primefac). If rejecting my joining, please making clear the reasons for rejection within the accepted Criteria for Participants. Thank you. Cheers, and happy holiday. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the reasons are that you have been applying improperly rigid standards. It is entirely my role as an experienced WPedian to make suggestions about where you (or anyone) can learn the standards here--its the same advice I have given dozens of other editors.It is possible that my advice is wrong, and that you are not in practice willing to follow our standards even when you learn them, but I give you athe benefit of the doubt, just as I do with others. I am puzzled that you suggest that you work with me asa mentor if you challenge my right to give advice. I have given my opinion about your working at RfC, which is that you are not ready, and your attitude here proves it. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I do not accept your redirect regarding working on a different Project is immaterial to whether I will ping you, to ask you the proper course of action in a review situation. Apples and oranges. Robert first, but also you and Primefac. (You are all that I know there.) Regarding the "you have been applying improperly rigid standards," you are arguing from facts not in evidence. This is precognitive conjecture frankly, as (i) every indication I have given in reviewing contexts, places me shoulder to shoulder, or even a bit more liberal, than Robert, and (ii) Iyou have no evidence from reviewing, because all of this unprecedented, microscopic conjectural character microanalysis, is just that—conjecture; I have not yet reviewed a single submission! Bottom line, I know the standards and will apply them, have argued I will, and give every evidence that I will. (Have you even looked at the Steelism draft, to the other examples given?) This is prejudice, in the formal, literal, technical meaning to the word, andI am tired of it. Please reply with any further comments at the page where the decision is being made. Happy holidays. I am done. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Leprof 7272 - Apples and oranges, maybe, and they are not that different, for which reason I don't like the expression. They are both fruit, and are about the same size. A really irrelevant comparison would be apples and eggs or apples and chalk. It is my understanding that you have been applying improperly high standards in the review of pages in article space. It is reasonable to infer from that that you will apply similarly high standards to pages waiting to get into article space. What is the difference? Why do you so much want to do AFC, when your review standards have been criticized, and when doing AFD or DRV has been suggested? (Alternatively, have you considered doing NPP? With NPP, the pages are already halfway into article space, and you have to decide whether they are mosquitoes that need to be crushed.) User:DGG - I am inclined to say to give him rope, let him do AFC, and see whether he hangs himself, brings in a few goats, snares a Sasquatch, or scales Mount Mitchell (which is normally a walk-up). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


When someone asks my opinion, I give it. What I say is based not on my personal view of what WP ought to be like, or my personal opinion of the individuals involved. or of the subject; it is rather conservative mainstream advice designed to give people the safest path to proceed with the greatest benefit to Wikipedia. People may follow it or not as they choose. Similarly. when I am asked to perform an action, I do so according not to my own personal views, but according to my understanding of the mainstream consensus. There is a particular difficulty when I am asked to predict what someone is likely to do: I can only judge by experience of similar cases in and off WP, and whatI can guess about the individuals from their current actions; in doing this I must to some extent consult my feelings as well as my reason--it can never be an entirely rationally-founded judgement. In the last two years, I have been particularly aware of it because the work of Arb Com consists almost entirely of questions of this nature.
It is my opinion , Leprof 7272, that your current approach to WP is suitable to neither NPP or AfC. This is based upon several factors, most of which have been discussed, and I am not going to repeat myself--if I have been unable to get you to understand twice, a third time won't help. Some haver not yet been discussed here, such as your view of what constitutes appropriate sourcing as shown in your tagging--others have discussed it, and since it is continuing, I will probably join in at the appropriate place.
As another issue, NPP and AfC are very similar, and it is my hope that the procedures will be combined. There are some interesting differences: at AfC, people are at least pretending to play by the rules. We do not have to make a yes/no decision, but rather a decision to accept it now or defer -- but only in a few circumstances actually delete. People do not take decisions not to accept anywhere as unhappily as they take decisions to delete, so it is easier to give advice. Errors are less consequential. I think beginners are therefore safer at AfC, as presently constituted.
Robert McClenon, you have the same authority as I in this issue. As is almost always the case among admins, here and everywhere else, the two of us do not want to place ourselves in a situation of attempting to over-rule each other. We also --as is unfortunately not always the case among admins--are both people who know we make mistakes, and we both are generally willing to consider other viewpoints. I have only a few times in WP insisted on my opinion over the objections of others , and those have almost always been in situations otherwise impossible of resolution. If you want to go ahead and give the right, I will not contradict you, but I advise you not to do so. Further bad work at NPP will make the situation worse, and marginal work is not going to be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the page about me[edit]

Hello,

I see that you've deleted the page about me for copyright violation. Or perhaps this was an error. Can you elaborate, and if the page was deleted by mistake, can you restore? Thank you.

JDRIsher (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not DGG, but I think I can elaborate on this for him, JDRIsher (or at least attempt to). Simply put, copyright violations are not allowed on Wikipedia by law. As such, they must be deleted and will likely not be recreated under most circumstances. See WP:COPYVIO for more information. Also see WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, since, by Wikipedia rules, you are not allowed to edit or create articles that are about you. That's my understanding on this. DGG, feel free to add on or correct me on this. (talk page stalker) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JudgeRM -- All makes sense. I'm trying to understand what copyright violations would have appeared on that page. I'm not the author, but obviously I'm implicated :) Thanks for any counsel. JDRIsher (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JDRIsher, I cannot identify the article in question. Jus what was the account name you used when you submitted it it, and what was the exact title of the page? DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beautiful time of the year![edit]


Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me,
So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you.
Atsme📞📧 15:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transition Design[edit]

Hello DGG, this is a copy of a message sent a few days ago, to what I think may have been an incorrect discussion page, apologies if you have received it twice.

I am the originator of the Transition Design wiki page, which I believe you deleted a few weeks ago. The article was, I think, originally posted in 2013 and required many additions/updates, I have now completely rewritten it and reorganised into a draft version. We have been a bit remiss in not keeping it updated to reflect activities and developments over the last few years. I hope to repost the article in the next few days, but am unsure if it is better (and indeed possible) to repost the original Transition Design article, or whether to create a new entry for this updated version. Please could you advise.

I have, I hope, addressed the various arguments that were made in favour of the article's deletion, although, not being an experienced wikipedia user, I am now having difficulty in tracking down these comments and ensuring they have all been addressed. Contrary to some of the comments, to mention just a few things (which will be given more detail in the article) Transition Design is not simply a Phd strand in a design school developed by a single professor, it is an idea that originated in 2005 in Ireland, and in recent years has become a major part of all levels of the Carnegie Mellon design curriculum, where it is being taught and researched by multiple professors; it has now been incorporated into multiple design curriculums and research labs all over the world; several partnerships have been made between universities for the research and development of Transition Design; there have been two international Transition Design symposiums, one in Pittsburgh and one in Devon, UK, involving academics from many universities as well as practioners and researchers, and there will be a third symposium in a few months in Barcelona; many keynote talks on the subject have been given at conferences organized by universities and professional and research associations; dozens of invited lectures and workshops have been given all over the world; have been many papers by different people have been published on the subject, including multiple peer reviewed papers; and it is also finding its way into design practice having been taken up by the AIGA, the largest organization for professional designers in the USA with 26,0000 members (here is a link to their page a complete primer on Transition Design, http://www.aiga.org/what-is-transition-design )

The deletion of the article has created a good opportunity for completely reworking it and bringing it up to date, and I hope this version meets Wikipedia criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neodig (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neodig, as I said above, I hope to get to this over the holiday weekend. Maybe tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Care Anywhere[edit]

What do you think reads like an advert? I have tried hard to make it not sound like that.Rathfelder (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various problems: 1/The comparison with uber--see WP:EINSTEIN 2/ wordings like "at any time between 8am and 10 pm to suit their convenience, whether they are in the UK or abroad" 3/the claim to 100,000 members-- does this means people in plans for which this serves as a backup, people who have ever paid the fee, or people who regularly pay the fee, or people who have used the service. 4/the extraordinary claim of delivering prescriptions worldwide -- each country has local laws relevant to this--I know it's in the source, but it indicates to me the source is unreliable 5/but especially the last paragraph which is essentially intended to show the need or the company--it does not--it rather implies the need for companies such as this, of which there are many,
There are also other problems:: The Telegraph website says Synergix acquired or is about to acquire the company, not that it is "supported" by Synergix. There is no statement of the actual financials or contracting physicians or number of services provided. And there's one essential thing missing: the corporate website.
Normally I would nominate an article such as this for deletion, but I only tagged it because perhaps it is fixable. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Perfectly legit points. The sources look to me to be largely based on company press releases, and don't answer all your points. I will see what I can do.Rathfelder (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pages subject to WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES[edit]

Are Brighton hotel bombing and Margaret Thatcher subject to the ArbCom case? --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the wording is "all articles could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland," It seems to me that unambiguously includes Brighton hotel bombing. I think it would include appropriate parts of the bio of any relevant UK politician. This is my personal view--for the offical interpretation of arb com you have to ask at WP:ABR. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


RDX[edit]

Hi,

You recently deleted my page RDX Inc. Let me tell you about this. I was trying to move rdx sports to rdx inc and didn't know about move page function. So I created a separate page RDX Inc which was empty page and try to to move rdx sports to rdx inc that page, which I think you figure out speedy deletion of page. That's why confusion raised. Please make my rdx Inc page live.

MartinRoy87 , you asked me about this a few weeks ago, but I didn;t see it, ecause it was on the wrog place. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RDX Sport was deleted by the agreement of several good eds. and admins besides myself. The deleted article was a product catalog. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swoon Editions[edit]

This page was speedily deleted, and I wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference and improvement, I am contacting you the deleting administrator for this, please. I was not clear there was a previous draft and of this page and both contents should be merged to create a fuller page with more references for re-review, Thanks CiaranR (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I'll get there., probably tonight DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CiaranR, you asked me about this a few weeks ago, but I didn;t see it, ecause it was on the wrog place. At the moment , the references were only notices about the company raising small amounts of money. there has to be something more substantial. When there is, try again, in Draft space, using the WP:AFC process. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Jeffrey Collé[edit]

Recently this Draft was removed from the Wiki. I was going to contest, but like the section said it was subject to be removed at any point after that flag was put on it. I was wondering if you would be able to provide the material as it was deleted, and I would like to completely rewrite the content. If it sounded too advertisey (if that's even a word) it was not the intention so I would like to clean it up. Thanks! Lmarotz (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get there., probably tonight DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lmarotz, you asked me about this a few weeks ago, but I didn't see it, ecause it was on the wrog place. Looking first at your article on René Dekker , it too is promotional, and I would not have accepted it. The most important thing it needs is the removal of puffery--adjectives of praise d t not add anything; just state the accomplishments. I'll look again in a little while to see the improvements. Colle has the same problem., along with being too personal, e.g. "to help achieve the appeal of his specialty homes, Collé uses... He also prefers to... He says that this is in order to ... " That sort of wording is what would belong on his website, not an encyclopedia article. It did not help that the references were written in such a way that one could not easily see just where they were published--try using cite journal or cite web, not cite web. If you want to try again, first fix the Dekker article, and make another draft. , . DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC) .

[edit]

hi DGG, you added an advert tag to this article some time ago, and i've worked on improving the article since autumn - added content, sources, slightly changed the style. as i wrote parts of the initial article and now edited it, i think it is not ok to remove the advert tag myself. could you please take a look at the article and remove the tag if you find it appropriate, or please give some advice, what could be further improved? thanks! Becomingx7 (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Becomingx7, you asked me about this a few weeks ago, but I didn't see it, ecause it was on the wrog place. I thing the article , Institute for New Culture Technologies-t0 is far too detailed. A promotional article is one that tells the general reader what they might like to know; yours is addressed rather to someone who already has close connections with the organization. I strongly advise you to reduce description of events to a single sentence each, and that a link to them is better than writing out where a playlist or transcript can be found. It's not appropriate to list each speaker, especially if they are not notable enough for a WP article. The reader who wants the details will know to look atthe website. WP is NOT a DIRECTORY. Why don't you revise it, to about 1/2 the length, and I'll take a look again. That would beb etter than someone else doing it for you, but I will if necessary . DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Aegis limited[edit]

Dear admin USER:DGG, Last time you deleted a company article Aegis limited, This article is live now with title "Aegis (company)" Please redirect Aegis limited to Aegis (company). Wishing a great year ahead and very Happy new Year 2017

Wikibaji 11:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talk • contribs)
I'll get there., probably tonight DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking in, I must first suggest WP:PAID in case you are an employee or otherwise involved with them. This has been deleted several times now and Advertising and what's currently at the article is classic signs of it. First of all, their PR awards (of which are listed) mean nothing to us and it's clear they're only existing as shoehorned information. Next, the sources are simply published and republished PR, company announcements, intervirws and mentions (this is obviously simply by hovering over them). What we specifically need is actual substance in major news, nto something they either influenced or co-published. There's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone. To be blunt, carefully examining this finds nothing to suggest independent notability in an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me some questions about your editing. Here's the reply I also poted on you talk page

As has just been said, the first question is whether you are following our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure Considering that you are working on only on Indian companies in a number of different fields, the most logical assumption is that you are indeed an undeclared paid editor. This opinion is reinforced by several types of unacceptable editing behavior. (1)The content is promotional: encyclopedias ive information a general reader might want to know. This does not include the names of all the executives. Nor do they want a list of minor specialized prizes. (2)Re-creating a deleted article under a variant title in the apparent hope of avoiding page protection (3)Creating an article in your sandbox and then moving it to mainspace in the apparent hope of avoiding new page patrol (4)Creating articles in a pattern typical of promotional editors by adding entirely unnecessary and obvious see also's in the apparent hope that it will show up in additional searches. (5)creating un-necessaey and improper redirects, apparently o ive the impression of increased exposure. (6)and finally, re-creating articles previously created by an editor who has already been banned for being an entirely promotional editor, leading to the reasonable suggestion that you are the same person (or conceivably, a different person undertaking the same job for the company--which is proof of undeclared paid editing) . I await an explanation--and a chance to look at your other articles. Since WP does not include advertising or promotion, entirely promotional editors are always blocked rom participation, as are editor who violate the terms of use. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles about businesspeople?[edit]

Hi DGG/Archive 119 Dec. 2016: Back in January of 2012 you posted this on my talkpage: Come back, please, you've let yourself bye chased away by people who are opposed on principle to articles on businesspeople. Since you posted this message almost five years ago, I wonder if you have changed your mind since? I would appreciate a response on my talk page. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Proposed Nestle Bear Brand to more languages[edit]

I have seen to be proposed this article Nestlé Bear Brand to make more than 50 languages to make an encyclopedic article, and will back my deleted Bear Brand article from some languages.

Note: it proposed to be 50

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_119_Dec._2016&oldid=1089583982"