User talk:DGG/Archive 143 Dec. 2018

ARCHIVES

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

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

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

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

Tamar Bercovici[edit]

Hello, and thank you for the note at my Talk Page. I've asked for help at WikiProject Women in Red. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bekir Fikri[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bekir Fikri. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reinstating SoulPancake page[edit]

hello, can you provide some insight into how to best go about reinstating the SoulPancake Wikipedia page</ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_132#Apparent_edit_war_between_SoulPancake,_Aviv_Hadar,_myself,_and_perhaps_at_least_one_other_unknown_party</ref>? it was deleted back in July and we are trying to reinstate it.

any insight into specific areas that were deemed to fall under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion and how to best go about resolving those areas would be much appreciated.

we are hoping to resolve this ASAP. thank you for your time.

i look forward to your reply Themoonrightnow (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arb case[edit]

Hi DGG. Given your recent vote at the Jytdog case, I was wondering if you thought the motion I brought up might be worth bringing to a vote instead? In short, cut out the problem topic area entirely instead of a blanket site ban. Maybe it's too late in the game and essentially buried at this point (I didn't realize we'd have this quick of a turnaround), but I figured I'd toss it out there for arbs as another option that might be more preventative sanction focused. I'd personally prefer to see the preventative necessity of a site ban explicitly justified over such a topic ban in the arb votes if that's going to happen by including both motions, but I'm planning to duck out of the case either way at this point most likely. Just curious if you thought it was a viable motion to bring up or has the train has left already? Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to be said for your idea, that " Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from any material relating to an editor's real-life identity, broadly interpreted." I've tried to find many similar solutions in terms of topic limitations, and so have others, but they are very tricky to word. (My own idea was to limit him to article space and to talk pages when people asked him about his edits. Another possibility was forbidding him to attempt contact with anyone off-wiki about a WP matter . Yet another was forbidding him from dealing with matters involving COI. (there are lots of articles in fields he is knowledgable about that he could write or expand without getting involved in that ) The specific wording problem with your idea is that many people do use their real name or some versions of it, including coi editors, and including even people writing autobiographies. It is possible to discuss these things without makign dwefiite accusations, but actual identies are usually implied to some degree whenever there is coi.

There is a broader problem. It seems clear that he has too great a degree of confidence in his own judgment and his own abilities. This can be seen also in matters not involving coi. He will sometimes therefore push too hard about whatever he is working on. And though it's improved over the las year or two, it hasn't improved enough.

There are none of us here who is capable of making a judgment about what might or might not happen in any personal matter. It's presumptuous of us to pretend otherwise. Idid not join arb com to make judgments, but to solve problems. I don't really have a solution for this one.

I'm going to copy this onto the arb page. I wannt to thank you for persuading me to revisit it. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree that the wording is definitely open for tweaking considering what you said, so it's really just meant as a first step of intent. If something like that does go through and that line still did get clearly crossed, I would agree that there's no WP:ROPE left at that point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a situation here[edit]

At the article Emma Sulkowicz and Columbia University rape controversy I've elected not to engage yet, because I have other open discussion that this could seriously effect. In this section the user Nblund stated "We're not going to treat Cathy Young or Mona Charen as reliable sources, and we're not going to ignore one side of the debate or overemphasize an issue that is discussed elsewhere". As far as I can tell Cathy Young or Mona Charen are reliable sources. Over the past few months the group of editors on that talk page has been systematically removing criticism of Emma Sulkowicz and evidence that her accusation was false. For example this version included the Facebook message which was the key point of Nungesser's lawsuit against Columbia.

I've noticed that when men are accused of sexual misconduct it is immediately added to the lead (e.g. Brett Kavanaugh, James Deen, Steve Wynn etc). I attempted add her controversy with this edit I added "Sulkowicz has been a controversial figure in media and social media with bloggers and commentators accusing Sulkowicz of making a false accusation of rape". It was immediately removed despite being sourced. I know you like to make your own formulation without bias so I'll keep my beliefs in the Hat below.

What I believe
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe there are a group of editors using Wikipedia to promote political ideologies which directly violates WP:HERE

Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to spend 12 years here without getting into article problems where it is almost impossible to avoid making judgments about people. To illustrate the difficulty, I'm sure you mean to send me a neutrally worded notice, but I would have said "evidence that her accusation may have been false." I will look at all these, but not in the next day or two, and I will only get involved if I think there is something actually helpful I can do.

I want to remind everyone that if you would like me to pay attention to an article, please just mention the article. I will read the discussion and form my own conclusions about what I ought to do. When you indicate what you would like to see done, I have the inclination to prove my freedom from being thought to be canvassed by doing something quite different. (smile) DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually hope you do not get involved I came here looking for advice regarding the calmest and strongest approach. I know from past experiences that if I open an RfC it is going to turn into a full blown war and I probably would be fully committed for six months. I'm trying to avoid that. I was hoping to see how I can prove Cathy Young and Mona Charen are reliable sources. I intented to open a discussion for that and then added their sources. Because you are a librarian I was wondering if there was a simpler way. Or maybe they are not reliable sources, I don't know. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I share your reservations about holding an RfC on this. I will look at the sources you ask about, --but I am also going to check outthe entire discussion, which will take more than one look.. I hope there is no urgency, for I am unlikely to get to it until next week. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

No urgency, thanks for any feed back. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Valoem a ping would be nice here. As I stated in the very next sentence of the response you partially quoted: I'm open to including some additional discussion of the controversy, but multiple editors cited multiple issues with your edit which you made no effort to address. Instead, you responded with stuff like this and this. Those approaches, unsurprisingly, didn't actually gain much traction, but you didn't bother trying anything else.

If you want to address content concerns, you need to either attempt to address the concerns of other editors, or you need to follow the advise @Grandpallama: gave you here, and pursue another venue for dispute resolution. If you want to accuse other editors of systematically suppressing information, you need to gather diffs and take those complaints to WP:ANI. Ignoring everyone and then attempting to quietly appeal to another admin is not acceptable conduct. You are plenty experienced enough to know better.

@DGG: I appreciate that you're trying to be helpful and also remain neutral, and I can see that lots of editors look to you for advise. In this case, however, it seems like Valoem is bringing this issue to you instead of (rather than in addition to) making an effort to build consensus with other editors, and he's casting unfounded aspersions. I think the most helpful thing to do here would be to encourage Valoem to pursue his content disputes through the same avenues that every other editor uses. Nblund^talk 18:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nblund:, By chance how did you come across this page? I wanted a private discussion, and due to the political nature of the debate which may be opened in the future, I advised against opening any ANI until the proper arguments of possible bias have been put forward. I still don't understand how you arrive at this page if you are not stalking me? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your contributions. For good reason, apparently. I realize you wanted a private discussion, but that's precisely the problem. In the future, please ping editors when you start a discussion that involves them, and please refrain from making baseless accusations or threatening to take people to ANI if you have no intention of actually doing so. Nblund^talk 18:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

anyone who wants to have an argument with me, please do so here. Anyone who wants to have an argument with someone else, do it elsewhere.

But , Nblund anyone who wants me to look at something, can certainly ask me to take a look at it here and I think it quite inappropriate to discourage or criticize someone for doing so. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Media Projects article[edit]

Hi David, An editor at the Radical Education editathon on Sunday created a new article for Allied Media Projects. It was put up for speedy deletion; I and some others did work on editing it yesterday (more to come!) and contested the deletion on the talk page (it has been downgraded from speedy deletion to considered for deletion), but there is still discussion going on on the talk page and I'd be grateful if you have a moment to add any suggestions or thoughts. Perimeander (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shall email you. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review Copyright Issue on Pure Storage Page[edit]

Hi David,

My name is Ian Wikramanayake, I am the social media manager at Pure Storage. It appears that a copyright issue dating back to 2012 recently caused an investigation on the Pure Storage Wikipedia page and requires admin attention to resolve the copyright issue in history. I’d greatly appreciate your help to resolve this issue, so the Pure Wikipedia page can be restored.

Ianwikramanayake (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the matter seems to have been dealt with by another editor.Thearticle is at Pure Storage. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zenni Optical[edit]

Draft:Zenni Optical is at AfC but it shows that it the page Zenni Optical is protected from creation by you for what looks like continued recreation and sockpuppetry. Can you unprotect the page so I can move it to the mainspace? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard for now, actually. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re Carrying on[edit]

Regarding your recent Carrying on section: you alluded to not being able to "keep track of pages that [he] may have been watching." Would it be helpful to have his watchlist? Even if unable to log in, he can view his TP, and if it seemed like having his Watchlist would be useful in combating COI (or helping in any other way), then if we asked him there and he was amenable to the idea, maybe he could it email it to you or to somebody. He can't log in and access it now, but I bet he remembers the highlights. Would this be a worthwhile initiative? Mathglot (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean however was not that I would be unable technically, but that I am unable to deal with the work involved. He has been at least as active as I , and many more of the matters he dealt with are subject to continuing problems.

As you say, he is blocked, and cannot log in, and cannot see his watchlist when logged out. There is however a workaround, using the Related Changes feature at WP:Public Watchlist I or anyone could look at his edit history and construct a list of what needed to be watched. Like me, there are undoubtedly several thousand pages on his watchlist, and his edit history like my own will involve many thousands of pages. But your suggestion is useful, and something can be done along these line. I shall this weekend try to prepare a subpage in my own userspace of recent articles that he was involved with that remain seriously problematic, but nott hose that are trivial or -- more important--those involve carrying on continuing disputes. Other people will see them quite enough without such assistance. I can use my own judgement for this, and of course anyone can add to it. There is no need to ask him and I do not think he would really be helped by being reminding about problems here that he cannot work on.

I'll give the page link here when I've done the work. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alternative Business Funding[edit]

David. I understand you were the editor who undertook the speedy deletion of Draft:Alternative Business Funding. In fact, it was deleted so fast I was unable to even lodge an appeal and I am concerned that this decision shows a lack of consistency in the decision-making process.

The entry was justifiable as an organisation which pioneered a product/service that led to a direct change in UK legislation. The entry itself was significantly amended following comments from the original reviewer to enhance the balance. The historical context and generic explanation of how a funding portal works was also amended to provide an even stronger encyclopedic element to this content. I ensured these elements were educational and balanced. The citations were all from independent, national publications or directly from UK Government sources. The G11 decision states: "because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic" and yet there are numerous live Wikipedia entries in this specific sector to which this ruling would apply - not least Funding Options, the second of the three UK Government designated portals (NOTE: it is absolutely not my intention to see this page removed). The same could be said for the Wiki entries of products and services such as Funding Circle, CrowdCube, Zopa, and MarketInvoice (which has been flagged as having significant issues but remains live). Also, every UK bank listed in Wikipedia. Again, my intention here is not to have these pages removed but to demonstrate the inconsistency in this deletion decision. I would be grateful for your comments and an opportunity to review your decision and reinstate the page.Casius12 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casius12 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles must show notability according to the rules in WP:N; in general this requires multiple substantial references from reliable third party sources that are not mere press releases or notices, and not advertising, nor promotional interviews where the person interviewed says what they please.. Of your references, almost all were about the general method of Designated Funding Portals (about which we do need an article) -- the others were mere mentions or promotional interviews. You are correct that the article Funding Options was almost as bad, and I have listed it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funding Options,if you do not think it should be removed, you can comment there, declaring your coi with a firm in the same industry. If the consensus is to keep that article, I will consider reinstating yours as a draft. As for the others, one is a firm listed on the LSE, which we almost always consider sufficient for an article-- I shall look at the others. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Thank you for your response. I have objected to your proposed deletion of Funding Options, but will put together a reasoned argument for both as soon as I can. It was not my intention to demonstrate that the article was "almost as bad" - in fact entirely the opposite and I am sorry that this is your interpretation. It clearly wasn't the view of the Editor who found it acceptable in 2016. As I am sure you will understand, I am now extremely reluctant to discuss or debate other entries for fear of these also being subject to deletion. This has never been my intention and, given that I feel the deletion of the ABF draft is unfair, I don't wish to be responsible for a cascade of further similar decisions. Your comment about a Designated Portals entry is duly noted and this may, ultimately, have to be the compromise. However, I would prefer to address the issue of individual entries first. Thanks for your time - I'm sure we will be 'talking' further in due course. Casius12 (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have some good points.

Dealing with the other articles is always a problem when comparisons are mentioned. I' m trying to think of a way to still look at them, but avoid the side effect, or at least not make it so obvious. But to be clear, once I see a problematic area, I sometimes look at everything there, though it may take me a few years in some cases to go through them all.

Regardless of what happens to your particular article, one on designated portals will I think be a good idea. For areas here where there are questions of notability, my experience is that an article on the general field is always helpful. It helps show the field is important to those who have not heard of it, anddecreases the likelihood of deletion of articles on firms in the industry. I'm in the US, so the term though not the concept is new to me, and I'm glad to know about it. (In fact an article on the general field is helpful for all fields whatsoever. It can serve as the basis for expansion. It also shows that you are interested in writing more than just on this particular company.

Our standards for articles in companies are higher and more consistent now than 2 years ago. But there should be no problem in having an article if you can find references that meet the criteria. If you can show them, I can undelete the article and add them, splitting out the part on designated portals. Our standards here are fixed on the quality of the references; myself, I think we should take importance in a field into account also, but that's a minority view, and tho I will say it in discussions, when I take admin action such as deletion, I always follow the orthodox rule as strictly as I can.

We are currently going through a phase where we are emphasising removing promotionalism . The priority here is articles that are entirely or mainly promotionalism , but in practice it now also includes articles that are even somewhat promotional, and it has therefore has an effect on all articles on business (and nonprofits also). I'm not a zealot about this: any fair article about a good or useful enterprise will inherently have some promotional effect. But the immediate need is to get rid of the undeclared paid editors who write straight advertising in violation of the terms of use, and about that I and most of us here are quite determined. We will never actually get rid of them entirely--the temptation will always be strong--but once we have the problem a little more in hand, then we can deal with the more difficult problem of getting people to write balanced well sourced articles on organizations. I recognize the unfortunate side effect upon people who do declare properly. I however do not know how to avoid it. All Ican do is encourage people who want to write properly about important organizations to find really good references. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Thank you for the considered response. I think there are a number of challenges here, all of which I appreciate. Let me try and address them in order:

1. Yes, having now been on the receiving end of this, it has a significant unintended consequence (i.e. deletion rather than comparison). I think the challenge you face here - and believe me I am really NOT setting you up for this, because you could collapse an entire house of cards - is that in the financial/business sectors, there will always be this tension between the commercial and non-commercial. So, for example, you talk about the legitimacy of LSE-listed companies. They still breach the literal rules of Wiki regarding the promotion of companies. The fact that they are listed only means they have public shareholders - they still remain commercial, profit-making organisations. It is really only a matter of scale. In the case of ABF, Funding Options, or the other companies I listed above, they are relatively small and mainly unlisted organistions, but the impact of the services they provide on the UK's SME sector is far more significant than the organisations themselves. As with the US financial services sector, UK's Alternative Finance Sector is complex and interlinked and, where players within the system are innovators or disruptors, there is an argument for them to be recognised by Wikipedia. If it would legitimise the entries for both Funding Options and ABF and allow them to be/remain posted, then would it help to provide links to some of the other organisations they work with (and each other)?

2. Thank you for this. I had assumed you were US-based and this is a pretty niche area - as the article says, there are only three portals in the UK and it took a change in our national laws to bring them to fruition. So, yes, this is fair comment and, depending on the outcome of this discussion, this may be the solution we will have to settle on. In fact, even if I can persuade you to retain the ABF and Funding Options entries, I would like to create a Funding Portal page anyway and can reduce the content on the ABF page as a result.

3. This is the bit I am REALLY struggling with. In your previous comments you stated: "interviews where the person interviewed says what they please.....-- the others were mere mentions or promotional interviews." Even after reading the Wiki guidelines, I am still struggling to get to grips with this. The articles cited in the ABF post, for example, were in UK National Newspapers - The Times, The Financial Times and the Financial Mail on Sunday - and all were undertaken by respected journalists. They were not published as advertorials (it was have to state this at the top of the article under UK media regulations). Of course a person interviewed can say what they please! But by being passed through the filter of a professional, independent third party (in this case a national newspaper journalist), there has to be legitimacy and verification to what they say backed by the journalist's own reaserch and credibitlity in creating the article. If you take your/Wiki's argument to its logical conclusion, then any citation involving a quote could render the 'quotee' (is there such a word) as a liar or fantastist simply by saying it. I have also just read your response to a discussion further down your page in which you state: "The content needs reliable sourcing, not necessarily independent sourcing. A person's CV is suitable for that." Is that serious? I was always taught that, in order to get a job interview, you should be embarrassed to read your own CV! I would suggest that a CV is arguably one of least reliable sources of fact about any individual. In a toss-up between CV and professional journalist, journalist wins every time. But I digress. After the comments of the original reviewer, I was diligent in changing some of the references to what I believed to be more credible and independent sources. On the one hand you/Wiki appear to want citations that are more than mere mentions, but on the other are critical of articles which focus entirely on the organisation cited as being 'promotional'. This suggests a case of having it both ways.

4. While I completely understand and recognise this objective, I think this is about picking your battles. Rather than questioning the motivation of Editors, success may lie in taking the approach you suggested at the end of your paragraph (and by engaging in this talk process): namely, educating ANY and ALL Editors to write balanced articles and understand the issues faced in sourcing, etc. Whether voluntary or paid, if they genuinely care about the content they produce and the way Wikipedia works, they will learn how to create/amend content that meets the needs of Wikipedia and respond to constructive criticsm and discussion from reviewers. Those that are purely 'copy monkeys' will very soon disappear as they are probably paid on results and will simply walk away from any challenge. It is also worth considering that someone that is paid and makes a successful living as a writer may well produce higher quality, better researched and better informed content than an enthusiastic amateur. Don't forget you still have the Editorial community to review and amend every entry and, again, you may find that the 'paid' Editors can add insight and additional value to entries, whatever their motivation. View this an an opportunity rather than a threat.

Regardless of the outcome, this dialogue has at least motivated me to do a little more entry reviewing where I can and where I feel I have enough expertise to offer comment. I have edited a couple in the past, but need to read more about the process before diving back in. Casius12 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, just wondering if you have made a decision on this and on Funding Options. It seems that KEF is backing you up on deletion, but I'm not sure that he has seen this discussion thread. Casius12 (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page length[edit]

Your talk page is currently 816,412 bytes long (with 370 sections). That makes it unusable for some editors. Please archive most of it, in smaller chunks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

by the end of the year; but it will still be longer than you would probably like. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance in a COI-related case[edit]

Dear DGG, I was working this summer at the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) as a Wikipedian in Residence. I was at that time using the account user:WiR IACA and was mainly focussed on writing the article Anti-Corruption. While doing my work there, I also noticed that the article about IACA itself could need some improvement. I was hence suggesting several changes, which were integrated by Spintendo but later on mainly reverted again by Jytdog. After their edit, I tried to understand what exactly caused this revert but only received several times the assurance that they would soon have a look at the raised issues. After the end of my project at IACA, I was retiring the former account that was exclusively created for the purpose of the residency but asked a follow-up question to Jytdog like ten days ago. As they did not answer again, I checked their page and noticed that the account is retired/blocked. On their talk page, I saw that you were so kind to offer a review of problems raised on Jytdog's page and, therefore, thought about contacting you to ask you, whether you could have a suggestion concerning a proper way forward. I would not like to ignore Jytdog's objections against my suggestions by re-raising them through the requested edit-process but do obviously also understand that I will probably never receive a response from their side any longer. If you should have the necessary time, I would be super thankful for a short check of the respective discussion (even though there are several sections, the last one might be the most important one). Otherwise, I would obviously also be happy about any advice from your side, which steps I could take in order to avoid circumventing Jytdog's objections without conserving the status-quo for good. I would like to thank you already in advance for your efforts and want to apologize for this rather lengthy text. Please feel free to simply delete it, if it should be inappropriate. Best regards --Kid from Laxenburg (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kid from Laxenburg,Iwill get to this , but it will take me at least a few days. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to hurry at all, there is absolutely no urgency for anything to happen, I was more curious in general. Thank you very, very much! --Kid from Laxenburg (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Helene Benveniste, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katedralskolan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Road Warrior Hawk[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Road Warrior Hawk. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance in a COI-related case[edit]

Dear DGG, I was working this summer at the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) as a Wikipedian in Residence. I was at that time using the account user:WiR IACA and was mainly focussed on writing the article Anti-Corruption. While doing my work there, I also noticed that the article about IACA itself could need some improvement. I was hence suggesting several changes, which were integrated by Spintendo but later on mainly reverted again by Jytdog. After their edit, I tried to understand what exactly caused this revert but only received several times the assurance that they would soon have a look at the raised issues. After the end of my project at IACA, I was retiring the former account that was exclusively created for the purpose of the residency but asked a follow-up question to Jytdog like ten days ago. As they did not answer again, I checked their page and noticed that the account is retired/blocked. On their talk page, I saw that you were so kind to offer a review of problems raised on Jytdog's page and, therefore, thought about contacting you to ask you, whether you could have a suggestion concerning a proper way forward. I would not like to ignore Jytdog's objections against my suggestions by re-raising them through the requested edit-process but do obviously also understand that I will probably never receive a response from their side any longer. If you should have the necessary time, I would be super thankful for a short check of the respective discussion (even though there are several sections, the last one might be the most important one). Otherwise, I would obviously also be happy about any advice from your side, which steps I could take in order to avoid circumventing Jytdog's objections without conserving the status-quo for good. I would like to thank you already in advance for your efforts and want to apologize for this rather lengthy text. Please feel free to simply delete it, if it should be inappropriate. Best regards --Kid from Laxenburg (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kid from Laxenburg,Iwill get to this , but it will take me at least a few days. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to hurry at all, there is absolutely no urgency for anything to happen, I was more curious in general. Thank you very, very much! --Kid from Laxenburg (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'TO DO

Robert M. Epstein[edit]

I was browsing WP:REFUND and saw that you turned Robert M. Epstein into a live article. As far as I can tell, the entire content of that page, with the exception of some memberships in professional associations, is based on Epstein's own work and words. I am well aware that requirements for secondary sources are, shall we say, relaxed for people who meet WP:PROF, but that seems extreme. Furthermore, much of the content doesn't even seem based on the cited sources or even flat-out misrepresents them (in a way that promotes Epstein). Were you aware of these issues? This is a BLP, after all. Huon (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did not do it as well as I should have. As you recognize, the membership in the National Academy of Medicine is enough to pass WP:PROF, and in my opinion even a sourced stub saying no more than that would be sufficient for mainspace, though I myself never write anything that sparse. The content needs reliable sourcing, not necessarily independent sourcing. A person's CV is suitable for that. . But you are absolutely right there are some sentences that make claims that are not supported, and I did intend to go back to the article. I removed them now. Thee's one I think could be supported but needs a cite and I marked it. I had meant to remove most of the material about university service, as I usually do; I removed it now. There's a running debate about whether to make improvements beyond those necessary to pass afd indraftspace or in main space; I take an intermediatep position, that they could be done either way. Of course, the danger of doing it in mainspace is that one might forget to go back, or, more likely with me, be diverted into other things,, so I should have done more here. Thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and my difficulty is that in reviewing deleted G13s to see what shouldn't have been deleted, a/I seem to be the only one doing it and b/ there is no single step process for seeing the contents, Both of these get me frustrated every time I do it, so I do get tempted to take do it as quickly as possible, which is not always a good thing to do. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with explaining NAUTHOR/CREATIVE?[edit]

Hi DGG, I have someone arguing that coverage (ie, reviews) for an author's works doesn't count towards notability for that individual, as that would be the author inheriting notability for the works. I'm going to try to clarify my viewpoints, but I wondered if you would be willing to help as well. I think that since the article was created by one of my students, they may be assuming that I'm making the argument to save their work. (I did spiffy it up by adding the reviews and some tweaks, but I wouldn't move bad work live, of course.) I think hearing it from another person would probably help reassure them. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if you disagree, I totally respect that. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of their work are the principle thing that count for notability of an author. Ideally, substantial critical reviews from independent reliable sources. Authors do derive notability from their works, just as athletes from their performances, politicians from the office they win. What would possibly make an author notable except publishing notable works? Generally not their personal lives, and what else is there? Even prizes are normally for a particular work, though a few are for a whole career.

The question however is how many works, and what kind of reviews., I consider, and thousands of AfDs have uniformly confirmed, that the consensus here is that two or more notable works is enough .The usual problem comes from an author writing only non-notable works, and here I would be very reluctant to consider notability without very good sources about the author that are more than PR. The other likely dilemma is for an author who whas written a single notable work. A good case can be made forthe article being about the book, or about the author--I do not think it matters much, butI usually prefer the author because the author article has moreo f an opportunity for expansion as almost everyone who succeeds in writing one notable work writes others, but I have always opposed having 2 articles in such cases, unless the author is truly famous; there have been only a frew genuine cases.

However, in practice it depends upon the reviews. Borderline significant reviews I do not consider sufficient, by which I mean the brief reviews in Publishers Weekly and the similar. I will look at the specific case later tonight.

And rest assured that if I disagreed with you i would say so. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to soften Jytdog ruling[edit]

Though I am still worried about your opinion of WP:N, thanks for your comment here. There, but for the grace of God, go all of us who care just a bit too much about the Wikipedia. Poor Dog. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a situation here[edit]

At the article Emma Sulkowicz and Columbia University rape controversy I've elected not to engage yet, because I have other open discussion that this could seriously effect. In this section the user Nblund stated "We're not going to treat Cathy Young or Mona Charen as reliable sources, and we're not going to ignore one side of the debate or overemphasize an issue that is discussed elsewhere". As far as I can tell Cathy Young or Mona Charen are reliable sources. Over the past few months the group of editors on that talk page has been systematically removing criticism of Emma Sulkowicz and evidence that her accusation was false. For example this version included the Facebook message which was the key point of Nungesser's lawsuit against Columbia.

I've noticed that when men are accused of sexual misconduct it is immediately added to the lead (e.g. Brett Kavanaugh, James Deen, Steve Wynn etc). I attempted add her controversy with this edit I added "Sulkowicz has been a controversial figure in media and social media with bloggers and commentators accusing Sulkowicz of making a false accusation of rape". It was immediately removed despite being sourced. I know you like to make your own formulation without bias so I'll keep my beliefs in the Hat below.

What I believe
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe there are a group of editors using Wikipedia to promote political ideologies which directly violates WP:HERE