User talk:DGG/Archive 152 Sep. 2019

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

Useful neologism?[edit]

You seem to have (inadvertently?) invented a new term, culturall (or cross-culturall) [1] and in all seriousness I think it has a nice ring to it. E Eng 11:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertent, and, as you suggest, I'm going to let them stand. . DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Liz_MacRae_Shaw[edit]

Hello - and thanks for leaving a comment on my first Wikipedia draft entry. I appreciate your positivity, and I’d like to ask you when you say ‘need to check books’, who do you mean to do that? Would that be other editors, or would that be yourself. Thanks again for your help with this article, Hazel Raee. Hazelraee (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I needed to check if the bookswere of any importance. I did. They are unfortunately in almost no libraries, so I doubt that the subject is notable DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Wall Ventures[edit]

Was about to AfD this. I noticed you AfD'd this article first time round and it was deleted. It has since been recreated and you've moved it from drafts. What references swayed you this time? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the article has been rewritten/ It is no longer promotional, and ref12, though a real estate trade site, seems in particular to offer signifcant coverage (It's a quite good site--I've come to appreciate that site--It doesn't seem to do PR) . But if you disagree, nominate it for afd. As always, I may be wrong. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

broken ping[edit]

Hey, DGG! Just fyi, you broke your ping of GorillaWarfare at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_DGG. She may see it anyway, but thought I'd give you a heads up. --valereee (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I fixed it. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking your input[edit]

<-- Hello DGG,

Someone else (not me) recently requested your input at Talk:Henry_Harpending#Encyclopedia_of_Extremists_and_Extremist_Groups, and I'd like your input there, too.

I'd also find your input valuable at Talk:Nations_and_intelligence#"Nation"_as_a_thinly_disguised_proxy_for_race, but I think the Harpending discussion is the more important one, because it relates to something you apparently discussed with the other editor over e-mail. However, if you have time to participate in both discussions, I'd especially appreciate that. 2600:1004:B143:EDC0:314E:DBE3:C8AB:D70A (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I in general try not to engage in on-wiki discussion of articles in certain fields, where those I think I would generally agree with in related RW issues are editing in an irresponsible manner contrary to the NPOV aims of WP, and in which I have found myself unable to improve the manner of discussions. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, but I think it isn't a good course of action to ignore the problem and allow the articles to decline in quality. As I told you a few months ago, my original reason for becoming active at Wikipedia was that several members of ISIR were discussing how Gerhard Meisenberg had recently lost his job because of student protests based on the Wikipedia article about him. We don't have to worry about Harpending losing his job, because Harpending is dead, but it's also not unusual for people to lose their jobs based on the reputations of people that they have associated with, as happened to Noah Carl. That danger now exists for Harpending's colleagues who are still living.

Biographical articles at Wikipedia tend to play an important role in the efforts to get academics fired from their positions for having controversial opinions or co-authoring with controversial people. In Meisenberg's case there was an especially close link between the two, with the article being shared among the student protesters only a few months after Grayfell modified the article to make it much more negative. I don't approve of academics being fired for this reason, and based on the views I've seen you express, I'd assume that you don't either. As long as Wikipedia is being used to harm people in this way, Wikipedians who care about this issue should try to prevent that. 2600:1004:B164:FE0B:11CD:3650:F60F:F3BC (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many problems with the quality of WP, and this is inevitable with an encyclopedia edited according to our principles. I came here 12 years ago intending to to improve the quality, but for the last five have been working in a critical aspect, promotionalism. (If we allow promotionalism, we are no better than Google, and at best will be an internet directory, not an encyclopedia; political bias is however inevitable in human affairs, and we and our readers must expect it). enWP is much better this way than some other WPs from this--two dramatic illustrations have coincidentally been publicized in the last few days-- see the Opinion and Community View sections of the current Aug 30, 2019 Signpost. There are others, similarly disgraceful. It is not zero at enWP; your example is relevant; there have been many others, not all from the same side of the spectrum. My style is to look in at many, but just occasionally--if I took any as a crusade I would become too angry to work here effectively. I therefore have always rejected efforts to pull me in to repeated work in any one problem area.

I can not argue with you further without disclosing my actual views. I only do this when I know who I am talking to. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like to work in this area, because I think that almost everyone here does in fact want to promote a cause. It is very disheartening to work in an area where those who take overall positions that I might generally agree with, try to maintain their positions by quibbling and selective quotation, though their case would be made much more effectively by a full and balanced presentation. Whenever someone seeks to exclude sources it is more likely that they are trying to exclude whatever would help their opponents; they of course think this reasonable, as they appear to believe that anything that disagrees with their own preconceptions must by biased. The wy to counter bad arguments and dubious sources is to add good ones. It is not necessary to make judgements. Language in an article implying that someone is a bigot or a quack or a pseudoscientist is unnecessary--if they are, the evidence will show it. It is very frustrating that I cannot convince people of this, because they are harming the validity of their own arguments. Most people would assume that if an article starts out by judging the subject, it is likely to be biased. I typically simply do not read content which starts out be praising or denigrating the subject, because if someone finds it necessary to say that, they are trying to usurp judgment for the purpose of advocacy. If I call them out for this, I am in the position of assisting those who are in my opinion not just equally biased, but wrong.

I cannot work in this sort of situation. .

But I do have one general comment:

Our articles should not make judgments. Terms such as "pseudoscience" , "biased" "bigot" and "racist" are none of them necessary to be used in an article. All that is necessary -- all that is appropriate -- is to describe someone's work or activities. People who after reading a NPOV presentation of (for example) the modern study of the evolution of human intelligence regard the field aa racist will do so without our labelling it. Those who regard it a a valid branch of anthropology will conclude otherwise, but all will be informed about what it consists of, DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like your advice about one other aspect of this (you can just post it here, if you'd rather not participate in the article itself). On the Nations and intelligence article, I'm currently in a situation where consensus on the talk page favors including certain sources, but they are being removed by editors who are making no attempt at engaging with the discussion on the talk page. This makes discussion with those who are reverting impossible, and it renders the talk page irrelevant, because what consensus favors on the talk page no longer has any bearing on how the article is edited. What is the appropriate way to handle this type of situation? Thus far I have been restoring the material with repeated pleas for those removing it to participate in the talk page, but that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, and there must be a better approach.

2600:1004:B154:4AFD:54D3:80EB:573B:A92E (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm going to have a continuing discussion with someone here, I need somesimple way of keeping track of your edits, so I can be aware of which editor I am dealing with. The only way to do it is to make an account. I've asked this before, and others have asked it also. There is no good reason not to. It gives you no meaningful privacy protection, and serves to encourage suspicion. One of the things I've unfortunately learned to be cautious about here, is people who try to deceive me or put me into a position of appearing foolish. You presumably ask my opinion not in the abstract, because you want to see if I will support your positions, so I assume you aren't trying to do that.

And to answer you more directly:

if you wish to deal with other people who, you say, refuse to engage in dialog, start showing good faith by not refusing to get an account.

Please do not come back on my talk page until you have done so. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help please?[edit]

Hi User:DGG,

While I may not be very good, I have been trying to make some edits in the last day or so primarily to the page on San Tin. User:MarkH21 has responded in various ways to this. I was under the impression this was all constructive work being done in good faith. However MarkH21 has posted an editwar notice in my direction threatening to have me banned from making wikipedia edits. This seemed inappropriate to me and I posted a reply on MarkH21's talk page. There has been a further response from MarkH21. As per the response I then posted on MarkH21's talk page, I am concerned about the direction that dialogue is going. I am starting to feel like I am being railroaded by MarkH21 rather than working working civilly and collaboratively.

You seem a highly experienced wikipedia editor. Is it possible you could please take a look and feedback about the messages MarkH21 has sent to me and the concerns I wrote in reply? None of us are perfect and we can all learn new things everyday. I don't have the experience of wikipedia to be able to navigate the regrettable situation I seem to now be in with MarkH21 (and no doubt from MarkH21's perspective, that MarkH21 is in with me).

Any help is appreciated.

I gave my opinion. It is perhaps a little closer to Mark's than to yours/ DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG,

Thanks for responding. If more of your opinion is in line with User:MarkH21, so be it. As long as you are bringing calm and sensible objectivity to the party, so be it; calm objectivity is what is needed. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.148.34 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Welsh Affairs[edit]

Hi User:DGG. Just to inform you I have some input regarding your decision to draftspace the Draft:Institute of Welsh Affairs article. I had since made significant changes following Cleanup-PR stated on Draft talk:Institute of Welsh Affairs and feel draftspacing was hasty. Would appreciate your thoughts in more detail, if you have time. Thanks. Llemiles (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there today or tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 19

Regarding Draft:Ishvinder Maddh[edit]

Hello. You rejected Draft:Ishvinder Maddh. I conduct a project for new editors, mostly in German-language Wikipedia, where I'm a longtime volunteer editor. The draft's author is one of them and also fluent in English so she could contribute in English Wikipedia, too. The project focusses on socially relevant topics, and Ishvinder Maddh is a well-known figure in the Austrian movie landscape and renowned as a sort of "cultural ambassador", that's why he is in our scope. The article is written in a different style than I would use (e.g. a little "excessive" use of references) - but I can't explain to the new editor what's wrong with it. :) First and foremost, I think it's written in a neutral, not in PR style. I hope you could reconsider your rejection (I'm not that familiar with enwiki's draft system), or could explain me some of the abbreviations you used. (We have a similar problem in German-language Wikipedia with new editors and insider language, now I can experience this first hand...) 1. "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. bio" What does "bio" in the context of the Five Pillars mean? 2. "WO does not do that" What does WO mean? 3. "Topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia (AFCH 0.9.1)" (from the edit summary). What's 0.9.1? Thank you! --Raimund Liebert (WMAT) (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raimund Liebert (WMAT) (talk · contribs) -- I will give you a full explanation later today--this will take a while to explain properly.And I'll deal properly with the article. In the mean time, I apologize, DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several factors involved. 1. Although all the Wikipedias in the various languages I have seen appear to have problems with promotionalism , because of the very diverse readership of the English WP, there seems to be a special pressure here. I don't know the figures for elsewhere, but for many years almost half of the submissions to the English WP are eventualy rejected for either lack of notability or promotionalism, which commonly go together. For businesspeople, especially those who call themselve sentrepreneurs, the figure is probably more like 80%. Consequently we have a very high degree of suspicion. It's inevitable that we make mistakes--guessing at the numbers, we probably fail to remove about 10% , and we probably unreasonably remove about 2%. That does not excuse our errors, and we need to improve in both direction, but as a practical matter I doubt we will ever get the numbers reduced by more than half.

Furthermore, promotionalism in the world in general, and in Wikipedia in particular, is so pervasive, that even people without a promotional intend tend to write in a promotional manner. Sometimes., they even copy the style of promotional articles in WP, saying in all honesty that they think this is what is wanted. On the one hand this gives an increasing urgency to the removal of the large amount of promotionalism entered in earlier years when we had lower standards, but it also requires remembering that not all promotional-looking articles here are deliberate advertising. It's very easy to lose sight of this, and I know this is not the first time I --and others-- have done so.

There's not actually a sharp distinction between promotionalism and the incidental promotionalism that necessarily accompanies an article about any notable current individual or organization. Finding out about something will tend to encourage attention to it.and finding out about good things, or people who do good things, will inherently to at least some degree promote them.

There are a number of differences between the enWP and the deWP. I'm quite aware of them, because (though a typical of Americans I have no real speaking or writing knowledge of any language but English) as an academic librarian I have just enough reading ability in German (and in French and, borderline, in Russian) to revise articles translated from those languages into the enWP, and to fix the customary Google translations they are usually based on.

Most of what I work on is from German, because for a wide range of academic fields, the articles in the deWP are more complete than in enWP. As a rule, the articles are also better written, as there are (presumably) fewer non-native speakers in the de than the wp WP.We have a special page WP:Translating German Wikipedia of advice on this: perhaps the key difference is the greater insistence on specific formal references in enWP. (That does not mean our content is more accurate--just that we insist everything be written out, and avoid the sort of general references found in the deWP.

2.A key procedural difference is the enWP has a two-step process for accepting articles from new editors: they go first into Draft space, and are then evaluated by a process called WP:Articles for Creation, where the standard is to only pass those that have a reasonable chance of being accepted. After approval, the nrew articles go into our regular New Pages Patrol Process. The purpose of Draft space is to give editors a chance to revise--and also to decrease the likelihood of a promotional article being mistakenly accepted. (we still continue the userspace subpages for rough drafts). "AFCH 0.9.1 " is the current version of the program that handles the details. "WO does not do that" is my typo--it should have been "WP does not do that".

3.As for the draft: the reasons I judged it promotional included:

The duplicated list of film productions,
the use of vague language "facilitated" , "explored" , "ventured", "under his guidance"
Style characteristics such as the inappropriate use of bold face for project names, the inappropriate capitalization of terms like Tourism and Film Productions, Aviation Industries, etc.
The list of cities visited
The second picture & its legend, which is non-informative and amounts to name dropping
The excessive citations more than are needed to reference the actual content.--we call that WP:CITEKILL
And, especially, the nature of the citations: most of them are press releases, travel promotion sites, non-authoritative websites, quotes from the subject, mere mentions in general articles,

and combinations thereof.

I have reverted my earlier review, and I have re-reviewed. The promotional elements do need to be fixed. I am additionally not at all sure that the few good references are enough to support notability (of course, we recognize that almost all references available for the Indian film industry is very unreliable, with even the best news sources contaminated by the expectations that producers and other participants will pay for news coverage, so we tend to be a little flexible.) DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your time and thoughts. I see Jenishh next week, I think your advice is most helpful.

In German-language Wikipedia promotionalism is a (social) issue in the Onboarding Program (de:Wikipedia:Mentorenprogramm) where many new editors seek support by experienced editors only because they want to write about themselves or their company. However any conflicts of interest or promotional language cannot be used as justifications for the rejection of new articles; many deletions of new articles are because of our notorious notability criteria which are also known in the general public: at least some years ago I often heard, "if you want to write about yourself, better go to English Wikipedia." Specific formal references became important a while ago, it's more like in English Wikipedia now. However there are still tons of articles without strict referencing from former years - which makes it sometimes difficult to explain to new editors why they can't write their articles like existing articles anymore. --Raimund Liebert (WMAT) (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have for the last 10 years been doing the same sort of activity you do, at theWP-NYC editathons. In the beginning, 8 or 10 years ago, we would try to accommodate people who wanted to do an autobiography or had strong COI. After spending an undue amount of time with them with very little positive results in articles, our practice has changed. Unless the notability and available sourcing is really excellent, we stop them. Consequently, unlike most of the editathons in the US, we have almost 100% results in our articles not getting deleted in Wikipedia . (We can't prevent them trying it outside the editathon, but we do not want it under our banner. And in practice we do effectively stop almost all of them, because--NYC being the sort of place it is--most of the people who try to get articles about themselves are early-career musicians or artists. The effective argument for them is that if their notability is inadequate, the article will get deleted--after a discussion in which it will remain on permanent record in WP why the person was found not to be notable--and that this will not help their careers.

More generally, unlike what I believe is the pattern in Europe, WM-NYC has no centralized control over editathons--any person or group who can find space and attract people can run one, and we list them on our events page if they are at least in principle open to the public and otherwise in line with the purposes of WP. Everyone in our chapter is a volunteer in the chapter, though sometimes a WPedian in residence or an employee of a co-operating institution. Our membership includes many very experienced WPedians with a range of interests (about half of us librarians or other educators) ; enough volunteers have always come to guide every event. We have no formal way to enforce standards, but we volunteers are fortunately in approximate agreement on standards & practices; when there have been disagreements, we have worked out a modus vivendi--which I think we do better for lack of much in the way of formal structure. (There are of course also non-public editing sessions usually in connection with educational programs, and one or two of us generally help there also, but we do not usually list themas current events--they are included for the record in our event archive. Please note that all of the above is only my own personal interpretation of what I think we do. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as for the draft, I've accepted it. Any further improvements can be made in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayoub El Amloud[edit]

I know I keep droning on about this in various places, but this article is typical of the reason why I totally fail to understand why academics are considered non-notable by default until they have jumped through many, many hoops, but the quarter million bios about soccer payers are nearly all like this. Something needs to be done about this kind of SNG. Maybe I'm just biased - I am an extremely rare type of Brit who can't abide soccer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Were we to start trying to decide explicitly the appropriate relative coverage of the different fields, I foresee interminable and bitter arguments which would lead to instability, and make impossible even our very limited approach to rational decision making about individual articles. (The result, furthermore, might be very unsatisfactory--any consensus would really be a measure of the cultural understanding of the average WPedian, which in turn is a function of the level of the English-speaking world in general. )

So for practical action, the two problems are separate. For sports, the best approach is to make use of the usually ignored provision in the WP:N guideline for merging articles about technically notable subjects about which there is little information, WP:NOPAGE. (The page on the team would seem the obvious place to merge when relevant. WP:MERGE specifies two methods, merge discussion on individual talk pages, and mergers as alternatives to deletion at AfD. There's a provision for centralized listing of merge proposals; pehaps there should be a central place for discussion.

For academics, the basic hoop is having an influence on their field--I think that a reasonable approach. I have many times suggested that we accept a full professorship at a major research university as sufficient evidence of this, on hte basis that they are more equipped to judge than we are. (This can even be linked to sport criteria--in a sense, it's similar to playing on a highest level professional team.) There are various good criteria for what level of university we might require. Recently, there have been an increasing number of instances for associate professors passing afd (I think this may reflect the increasing competition in the academic world, which is causing a ancrease in standards for positions). So we might as a second step have a two level rule: full at a research university, associate ata major research university. Reflecting various discussion I've known , a decision for associate in a major university means a decision that the individual will be permanently of so great an influence as to attract other researchers and faculty. That's a very high standard, and such decisions by experts should be respected. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request new approval of Draft:Parks_On_The_Air_(POTA)[edit]

Hi DGG, After the article I've created called Draft:Parks_On_The_Air_(POTA) I've added some really good improvements to it making it more notable. It's now aged to the 'very old' category. If you'd please take a moment and approve this I'd appreciate it. Thanks! v/r Zul32 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now realized it not only had notability problems, but is basically a promotional article for the program. If that was not your intent, try to rewrite not focussing on its merits and how the details work DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking your input[edit]

.....

2600:1004:B154:4AFD:54D3:80EB:573B:A92E (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm going to have a continuing discussion with someone here, I need somesimple way of keeping track of your edits, so I can be aware of which editor I am dealing with. The only way to do it is to make an account. I've asked this before, and others have asked it also. There is no good reason not to. It gives you no meaningful privacy protection, and serves to encourage suspicion. One of the things I've unfortunately learned to be cautious about here, is people who try to deceive me or put me into a position of appearing foolish. You presumably ask my opinion not in the abstract, because you want to see if I will support your positions, so I assume you aren't trying to do that.

And to answer you more directly:

if you wish to deal with other people who, you say, refuse to engage in dialog, start showing good faith by not refusing to get an account.

Please do not come back on my talk page until you have done so. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Welsh Affairs[edit]

Hi User:DGG. Just to inform you I have some input regarding your decision to draftspace the Draft:Institute of Welsh Affairs article. I had since made significant changes following Cleanup-PR stated on Draft talk:Institute of Welsh Affairs and feel draftspacing was hasty. Would appreciate your thoughts in more detail, if you have time. Thanks. Llemiles (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there today or tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 19

Useful neologism?[edit]

You seem to have (inadvertently?) invented a new term, culturall (or cross-culturall) [2] and in all seriousness I think it has a nice ring to it. E Eng 11:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertent, and, as you suggest, I'm going to let them stand. . DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Hello DGG,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of most-liked YouTube videos[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of most-liked YouTube videos. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing and accepting Lise-Meitner-Lectures, I`ll do my best to improve this and related articles! Best regards ASchoenherr (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pero Mićić - PR brick[edit]

Hi DGG, I was quite astonished to find the brick "PR/Sensationalist" at the head of my article on Pero Mićić, which is an exact translation of a german article which has been existing for a while now. I would like to find out which passages you think read like PR or are somewhat sensationalist? I'd be quite thankful for your explanations here as I am not a native speaker of english and have just started editing in the english WP (I have more than 1000 edits in the german, though). Mićić is a renowned professor, author and CEO of a company in Germany with many links to US organizations and Universities. Which passages would you omit or rewrite in order to make it sound less sensationalist or PR-like? It would be so helpful to have some suggestions here where I should change something! Thanks a lot for your help in advance, I really appreciate it! --Grizma (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this one tomorrow or the next day, I hope. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Sonders[edit]

Hi I know you're discussing the proposed deletion of the Holly Sonders page. I've found a number of new references and external links and added them to the page. Is that going to enough or do I need more? Dwightform (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Hi I just sent you an email and I think I should have waited a bit before sending. My apologies. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Kumar (physicist)[edit]

Hello, David - I just accepted this AfC draft. Since you know more about academic articles, I'd appreciate it if you would check it over to make sure that the information is appropriate. Thanks!—Anne Delong (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it's basically fine. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Stritch[edit]

I'm interested in drafting an article for this singer/pianist. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not my field, but there seem to be several NYT reviews. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grub Alen Grubbs[edit]

Hi, thanks for reaching out, have done what you suggested and will love it if you go through the article again and give your opinion.Dee 08:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duthperod (talk • contribs) [reply]

Request on 13:19:05, 17 September 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by LindzSchmidt[edit]

LindzSchmidt (talk · contribs)
- Draft:The Inside (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I need help understanding what specific changes I should make to the page in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. The reason for your decline stated that it "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources," and as you'll see, I included 16 entirely independent, highly reputable sources -- none of which included content produced by or for the company. Additionally, when modeling this submission, I took careful pains to ensure it matched the near-exact format of other published Wikipedia pages (such as Rent_the_Runway and Hims,_Inc.). So I'm really unsure as to what I should be editing. The more specific guidance, the better! I welcome any & all feedback. Thank you very much! LindzSchmidt (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

forthcoming, will take a few days because Iwant to give a complete answer. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted draft re-created[edit]

Hi DGG. You deleted Draft:Plastiq via G11 recently, and said draft has now been re-created by one of the draft's primary editors. However, this editor (who is a paid editor) neglected to carry over AfC rejection comments and maintenance templates that where previously present on the deleted draft, effectively scrubbing them from the new copy. If you choose to spare the draft again, would it be possible to restore these comments and maintenance templates? I feel it is important for previous AfC reviews to know exactly why the draft has been rejected in the past. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

someone else deleted it.If it shows up again, someone will check the article history. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:IHeartRadio Canada[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:IHeartRadio Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balish Misti[edit]

I'm adding references. And after thar the article will meet Wikipedia's criteria. For that reason proposed deletion tag will be removed. Thank you. Great Hero32 (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added reference and removed proposed deletion tag. Just check once and if possible review the page.Great Hero32 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFC contributions[edit]

Wanted to pop you a quick note just to recognise your extensive AFC work, I see you do a lot at AFC and feel it's an under-appreciated task, so thank you. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification[edit]

Hi @DGG:, I am confused why you moved my newly created page to AfC (Register of Professional Archaeologists)? I was under the impression that intermediate-level editors creating a new page (which satisfies WP:N) need not submit their articles for months-long review. This might only be starter page, for sure, but I don't understand why it must go through review purgatory -- indeed, I can't find any policy stating this.

However, I do not want to revert your move, so I ask that you please consider moving it back to the namespace (and/or at least, provide your reasoning). Thank you, --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps moved to save from deletion, with 5/8 sources being self-refs? Hyperbolick (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, ok, thanks @Hyperbolick: I cleaned it up a bit. I'm just citing the original sources here, though-- when referencing an organization's principles and guidelines, it would be erroneous to cite anyone BUT them, no? --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, reliable independent sources still prevail over self-refs. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it's better to cite secondary sources than primary ones?? That's how misinformation spreads. Like, what you are saying is that it is better to reference what another author wrote about this organization's guidelines than what the guidelines themselves say. I understand independent, external commentary is needed and fills in missing context (and this is certainly not the place for original research), but here I am simply summarizing their guidelines and thus referencing the primary source of the information. The use of "self ref" here seems over-zealous -- I am not even convinced that is the reason DGG draftified this. --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question is, if nobody else has written anything of these guidelines, what makes them noteworthy to include? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am specifically addressing the "self-ref" thing, which I believe has been remedied. The article meets WP:N, and the organization's code of conduct is worth summarizing at least, as it is for every other professional organization described on Wikipedia.

I'll await a response from @DGG: on the reason he moved this to draft. --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when referencing an organization's internal guidelines, certainly one cites the organization itself. But to show the organization notable, one needs external sources. That's the basic principle for inclusion here, WP:N. You do have two externaal sources, refs. 2 and 3. But in each case they're printed books, and though printed books are perfectly OK for sources, we really need o have some idea how extensive the discussion is there, because it might just be a mention in a list. The way to do this is to give page numbers, and ,if it's very brief, sometimes a quotation of what it says.

That however was not the problem. The problem was that the article was promotional , indistinguishable from a web page the organization might post on its own site.. The present draft is oriented to show why the organization is needed and how important it is. Rather , it should be oriented to telling what the organization is and what it does. It needs to be directed towards what the general public might like to know, not whatthe organization would like the public to know. The way to do this is to find external sources that talk about the organizations work.

This is not the place to explain the development of archeology in the US--that should be a separate article; we do not seem to have one, and it needs to be written. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inital Article on Hydra (Creativity Technique)[edit]

Unfortunately, I noted today that you've deleted my post on this subject, a methodology has been taught during my time at the university.

After many attempts to google the topic and countless times I had to explain it over and over again, I initially created an article on the subject on my page. Since then many suggested to make it more public and allow others to contribute to the subject as it obviously contains aspects from, for example, psychology. (Which I can't explain)

By reworking my initial article and moving it here I was hoping others would adopt the technique and contribute to creating a holistic explanation.

I am not willing to do so without pointing to the source describing it first though. It is unfortunate that this is not wanted, as I believe that others would benefit from this.

Please reconsider the deletion or provide access to my article which has already been deleted with a "Speedy Deletion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msonst (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there were 4 problems.

1. The draft doesn't explain just what the technique actually consists of--it just uses metaphor in a way which the proponents of the method may find a convenient teaching tool, but which does not actually say anything specific. The language too general to bemeaningful. (the full site you refernece does seem to explain it) 2. It is written in such a way as to promote the technique, of telling how good it is. The public is not interested in whether you think the y would befit from this. The public wants to know what other people with a basis for judgingnot connected with the method think of it, and why they say that it is important, and write about it in published sources. 3. It has no reference except a single non-authoritative website. It needs to show that it is important from references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements 4, Worst of all, it is copied of closely paraphrased from that website. This is not permitted in WP. The author of that web page has the copyright. It is possible for them to donate it under a free license, and WP:COPYRIGHT explains how. Otherwise, you cannot copy it here, neither as an article nor on your own page.

We don't restore copyvio. You can find the material again in the web page you used. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification.

I am the author. So as said, I modified my original article due to the reasons above. However, I was creating the draft under the impression that I will have at least access to it if it was denied. "Worst of all": This language really turns me off, sorry to say that. I appreciated your feedback about 1-3 though and would have loved to improve my first draft basing on your feedback, but as you said: "We don't restore copyvio". Please close. Msonst (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write an article, I do not see why you would possibly want it, as it is almost the same as he material you copied. The first step would be seeing if you can find references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. If you can, use them as a basis for the rewriting. (If you're saying you are also the author of that web page, see WP:DCM for instructions.) Because we at Wikipedia are dedicated to providing a free encyclopedia without the usual copyright restrictions, we consider it especially necessary for all our contributors to obey the existing copyright laws as strictly as possible. apologize if my language was a little too strong, but I felt I needed to make it plain. . DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and the apology.

Please take mine for not informing myself enough before writing. Others can't edit my page, which is why I wanted to make it available and to allow others to collaborate. I decided to rework the article on my site and to invite others to contribute there in another way Msonst (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Defense Fund Europe[edit]