User talk:DGG/Archive 163 Aug. 2020

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

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New article I've created[edit]

Hi DGG, I do appreciate your having previously reviewed a couple of articles I've cwritten. Could you please review Lucy Carnegie Ferguson, which I've just created, should you have the time? Many thanks. Carlstak (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see it's been reviewed already by another editor. Thanks, anyway. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz[edit]

Please let me know if its qualifies as PROD. AfD is required in my opinion. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

""of course afd would be required, and it deserves to pass afd and I shall defend it there.. But this is just the sort of mutually destructive warfare that can qualify as pointy, possibly on both sides. Valoem. it is a serious mistake for you to create minimal articles on comparably mildly notable paleontologists, to try to establish the disputed article. What you need to do is write a more solid article than thos.. Find all of his original papers. Find every reference to them. Find every listing of them in a standard database. In earlier years, this would require use of one of only a few specialized libraries, but now it should be possible for anyone to do it. Make it a A grade article, if you can. There is never any point in a disputed situation in making many weak articles--it's much more valuable, to Wikipedia and its readers, to make a few really good ones that will gain you the respect of being a serious article creator. If you go ahead with arlicles like this, several unfortunate things may happen; it's impossible to have a rational debate here spread over several venues.

You will gain a reputation of being a pointy editor difficut to work with. That's your own look out, bu I can predict it will not end well for you .
it is certainly likely to cost us the informal guidline that discovering even a few species is wnough for notability . It is likely to even cost us the [principle that the work paleontologsts do os as notable as other scientific work.
As much such work is done in countries that do notyet have extensive facilities for laboratory science, it will increase the existing geographic bias of Wikipedia. As many palenotologistshave been women, it will also increase the existing bias here.
Most impt. to me ,it will encourage those who wish to remove articles on ideological grounds, a tendency which can destroy the nPOV of Wikipedia

And need I mention that you won't succeed. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree, but this is the nature of what has become of this encyclopedia ... and it is unsurprising. Every vision of the future is mutually destructive, it falls under the fallacy of control, this is understood. Veracity and notability is what drives us. The nature of human ideologies overrides the initial focus of the goals of this encyclopedia which it to write from a neutral point of view, any changes would be considered reckless, I could read this over and over again only to conclude an ever changing message, but any message is distortable. It is in "the eye of the beholder", the truth is what they say it is. They do not understand the fundamental nature of this. We could continue this plight, but they do not care about guidelines, it is about maintenance ... these actions can destroy us as an encyclopedia, but this was what the initial goals have always been. What I do hope is that Sandstein (talk · contribs) who is mostly like to close this, can finally understand who I am. I am here to build an encyclopedia. Bechly is unfortunately notable whather or not you agree with him and I don't. Closing is the most important power. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 07:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will gain a reputation of being a pointy editor difficut to work with. That;s your own look out, bu I can predict it will not end well for you . I've been in this category for quite awhile now. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 12:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to rejection of "Saurabh Bagchi"[edit]

In response to rejection on 26 Jul by DGG, I made the following changes. They make the article relevant to someone looking for technical topics, not just the person.

Reasons for rejection: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject."

---

1. Independent reference to Google Scholar to show highly cited in dependable computing. 2. Added cites to Wikipedia entries for Tippecanoe county, IoT. 3. Added cites to work that builds on work in wireless security. 4. Added cite to commercial wireless packet sniffers. 5. Added cites to work between LLNL and Purdue on debugging of supercomputer problems. 6. Added cite to patent on reliable storage patented and commercialized by AT&T based on the research paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh.bagchi.1 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to help anyone write an article about themselves here. There has proven to be almost nobody who can do so properly, and even if it were in some case done properly, I can not think of any circumstances when it is appropriate to the spirit of Wikipedia . When someone who knows a person's notable work wants to write an article about them, then there can be an article. Since you're clearly notable, I might consider it myself, except I do not really fell intellectually secure in your specialty.

I can not speak to what other people may choose to do, for we all act independently.

As for me, I am considering going somewhat further, and not helping any organization write an article about any of their staff; in the past I have done so if the individual is really important, but I increasingly think this also tends to lead to a breech of our principles. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft handling Draft:Amir Sarkhosh[edit]

Hello, I apologize, please review this draft, its problems have been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.112.204.69 (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not a subject about which I know anything, unfortunately. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Finlay[edit]

Thank you for responding to my draft on James Finlay. This is the first time that I have used this draft facility rather than entering articles directly. I am a little puzzled about the pro-forma comments at the top of the rejection. I might add that I have made extensive contributions to individual company historiies as you can see from my talk page, mainly 7-8 years ago. Dormskirk actually gave me a Star for one of them and has made helpful comments on a couple of recent entries.

The proforma text said the article was not witten in a formal tone. I am familiar with acadeemic writing and I can easily change everything into the passive tense but that can make it somewhat turgid.

The article should be neutral. I have never had any connection with the company and have no views on iit, one way or another. I am not sure in which way it was not neutral. My material has come from publlished sources.

It shoulld refer to independent sources. There are about a dozen separate references, including the company history, archives, academic articles and Companies House.

I am not sure what "peacock terms" are beiing referenced.

Your own comments at the end suggest less usse of the firm's name. That is always a balnce between clarity and repetition. Readiing through the draft I can see the name is used a lot and I can easily use "firm" or "it" more frequentlly.

You also mention removing some adjectives. I did not think they were overused but I will look again on the edit.

I don't mean to sound defensive. I have had work publlished at all levels and always welcomed criticism - it is nearly all helpful. However, on thhis occasion, I have been left a little puzzled.

Regards Bebington (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

given your obvious expertise, I'm going to accept--in fact, I should have accepted. The problems could be addressed in mainspace perfectly well. I attribute my error to the extraordinary frequency of truly promotional articles, the more sophisticated of which do indeed have the pattern I assumed, of having a decent section of the history from real sources, and a section on the present company taken from PR (this is most noticeable in historic houses converted to hotels). My apologies, for I increasing find that the deluge of promotional submissions is contaminating everything here, including my judgment. As advice, do continue writing your articles in mainspace, for other AfC reviewers are likely to make the same errror as I, for the same reason. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your generous response. Advice taken. Bebington (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing[edit]

I've also emailed arbcom but it appears the conversation you had with Tycheana was far from genuine, they blatantly lied. From their own userpage they link to Freelancer where they've received payment twice for two articles (likely more) and have never once disclosed. One of which was in the last few months! Praxidicae (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most undeclared paid editors when they run into difficulties like this simply go away, and, if they try again, do it quietly under another username. . I have encountered only 2 or 3 who stay and protest, and none of them quite matches this pattern. I have accordingly blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you so much and I will definitely check out the Teahouse page. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanitapandey (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:49:55, 6 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by RedBeardBandit[edit]

RedBeardBandit (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ron Rangel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I recently submitted an article (my first) and believe it was wrongfully rejected. I have added additional sources but there is some additional information. Bexar County is one of the larges counties in Texas. The local administrative judge has, in the time of COVID-19 been making unprecedented decisions regarding court access and jury trials. This has been the subject of much press coverage, some of which I included in the article. I believe that while not all district court judges are notable the local administrative judge making these historic decisions in a large Texas City is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration.

RedBeardBandit (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RedBeardBandit, not see any of this as being generally significant. I think you would need national references to do that. But I leave further reviews to another reviewer DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, MDanielsBot (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the rejected submission[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_Against_the_Modern_World one of Evola's other works has an independent page, do you think I ought to merge both? Emicho's Avenger (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, MDanielsBot (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

Hi @DGG: I wonder if you have a minute today to give your opinion on the talk page of how notable and what condition the article Derek M Yellon is in. @Dudewheresmywallet: doesn't believe it is notable, it is puff piece and keeps placing a notability tag on the article, which I have removed a couple of times. [[1]] Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Realme[edit]

Could we please draftify Realme? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC) (please mention me on reply; thanks!)[reply]

Cheers. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

another admin has already done this. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, MDanielsBot (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Christopher Cannon (medievalist)[edit]

I've been cleaning this up a bit. The man is highly notable, but the draft is written up likely by a grad student who was doing a nice thing but doesn't really know what it is we do here. If you have a moment to devote to developing it, that would be great. Writing these biographies seems to be more difficult and tedious every single time. Hope you're well, DGG, in these difficult times. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tedious, certainly. They would be a prime candidate for automatic article writing. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG after the last attempt at ediiting this on Christopher Cannon i am loath to meddle in case your work gets undone. If you let me know when you are done then i can fix things according to your comments, if needed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academy-aureus-argent (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work DGG, thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academy-aureus-argent (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thank you so much DGG! I appreciate it! You do rock! I do believe I corrected a few periods in error. Could you please take a final look. Thank you. Roccie ;) 05:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Flybits[edit]

Hey DGG. Got an “undefined” rejection notice for this from you and trying to gain some clarity on a) what the issues were; and b) how to make the article better. Was asked to include WP:THREE from a previous editor to prove notability, so I included three national news outlets. Today, did some housecleaning on two iffy sources and tried to get rid of any content with bias. Any help would be much appreciate. Thanks. Tdubsmun (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied on the Articles for Creation help desk, as did another reviewer. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ahmass Fakahany for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ahmass Fakahany 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/Ahmass Fakahany until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying you as the previous accepting AfC reviewer prior to the most recent draftification and undraftification. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Molossians on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Draft:Nikki Hunt[edit]

Hi, I've seen your comments regarding the Draft:Nikki Hunt. I've read your comments and made some changes to it. Could you kindly take a look at it again and let me know if it's acceptable? I also want to mention that I have added a COI on my talk page for this specific page. See below. Thank you so much $ Andreeatalos1990, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Design Intervention on behalf of Nikki Hunt for their contributions to Wikipedia.Andreeatalos1990 (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, MDanielsBot (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RSP comment[edit]

Hi DGG, I just wanted to ask if your recent comment at RSP is supposed to be a disagreement with mine? The framing seems to suggest that it is, but if that’s the case then I can’t figure out how it relates to what I said. (I also don’t understand the reasoning behind your first sentence, specifically what exactly must not have been considered if an RSP entry hasn’t been changed or removed after some time has passed. Certainly a source can change over time, but it can also remain the same.) Sunrise (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was being somewhat unfair, and I have just said so there. It was less directed at you specifically, than as a springboard for a restatement of my views . It is thus intended as an extension and partial disagreement, and you are right that the disagreement with your first sentence, more than with the rest of your comment. When you said, If an entry has been on this list for long enough, that is itself a form of precedent and implicit consensus. I think that, if taken without qualification, it is not a correct statement either in general, or as applied to RSN. But I was being unfair, because the rest of your paragraph, like mine, was a discussion of how consensus can change.

However, I really do not think at WP generally that the long existence of a rule necessarily proves anything, and I never argue on that basis, though I will argue on the basis of a long series of consistent decisions. Many of our long-standing rules, have remained unchanged. of at least unchanged in wording, because there is lack of agreement about just what to change it to. Sometimes, rather than change a rule, we make a new one, which may in some part be supplementary and in some part contradictory. More often, we reinterpret or ignore the parts of the rule that no longer fit our circumstances. Very often, we resort to determining case by case, in our usual inconsistent manner. (and that's the way I prefer to work, changing consensus by the accumulation of individual cases)

I recognize that the very purpose of the RSN is an attempt to get away from arguing case by case, and as I am out of sympathy with the approach usually taken there, to avoid frustration I only occasionally comment. As I have been saying for years: no source is completely reliable for all purposes, or completely unreliable for all purposes, and each use of. a source needs to be separately examined--and never judged or used just on the basis of the headline.. A newspaper may have a general tendency, but individual stories may be different. Some sources are notorious for inflammatory headlines, while the actual account is reasonably fair. We need to give the full range of sources, and let the readers judge. The current approach to me implies, instead, an attempt to guide the reader. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. :-) I agree with most of what you’re saying here. The intent of my first sentence was really only to state that WP:Implicit consensus applies. Philosophically, on the broader issues, I agree that issues should generally be determined case by case, but I would add that when similar issues come up repeatedly then there should also be a default assumption. I tend to be particularly concerned about unnecessary repetition consuming time and effort that could be better spent directly improving the encyclopedia, and potentially even causing editors to burn out entirely as well. So in an evaluation of source reliability, I would say that the starting point of the discussion should be an acknowledgement of a source’s “usual” or “average” level of quality, which can then be followed by determining whether the specific context justifies a divergence from the usual practice. The idea is to avoid having to constantly re-argue from first principles, and to place the burden of convincing others on the one who believes the current circumstances warrant a different approach than the usual. I suppose the result might be seen as guiding the readers, but I would tend to think of it as being part of our responsibility to maintain accuracy, e.g. minimizing the inclusion of false or misleading information, especially since readers will not necessarily consider the sources in the first place. (The specific description “let the readers judge” I actually associate with issues of false balance or even “teach the controversy”, but I do agree with the idea that it’s not our role to try and dictate anyone’s opinion.) Sunrise (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with what you say about AfD. I too think some degree of consistency in AfD is a virtue--not just simplify arguing at AfD, but for the benefit of the readers, who can better predict what they are likely to find here, but for guidance in advising people with new articles and AfC drafts--which is what i do most these days. . Since there will always be special cases, your suggestion of starting with a discussion of what is usual --and why this might be different--seems sensible--and I notice looking back that I often discuss at afD in this comparative way. There remains the question of what to do with borderline case, where they're borderline not because nobody as looked for material, but likely to remain borderline. The usual suggestions are merging, or draftifying--but merging can still lead to surreptitious deletion, and draftifying only works if there's someone to actually improve it. We need to be more willing to accept permastubs.

I do not , however, accept the minimizing of false or inaccurate information to the extent now practiced, nor ought we to be guiding readers. We must present information to readers: if we personally think something is the right position, we should have confidence that the plain and honest presentation of the facts and arguments of both those supporting and opposing our position will show it. Otherwise, why are we so sure of ourselves in the first place, if we think the facts and arguments of our opponents will convince the reader. Why do we need to protect a reader from making the right judgment on their own? The people who are convinced of absurd ideas do so because in their experience and education they have heard only their side of the argument.That they haven't been taught to distinguish?--very likely so--but if they come here they will ought to find a presentation that will lead to a fair conclusion. How are we to account for their errors--their intrinsic perversity?--if that's the case, protecting them isn't going to help much. No, there is only one reason for hiding or obscuring of minimizing or denigrating one side of the argument--the fear that it might convince people after all. That's the way some politicians do things: having no reasonable views of their own that might convince anyone, they hide, ignore, or mock the views of their opponents. If they pretend to consider the evidence, they present it in such false setting and misleading graphs and statistics--and they certainly don't let their opponents have a fair chance to explain their side without being made fun of.

I'm aware of "teach the controversy--a paradigmatic example of a misleading catchphrase. Those who pretend to teach the controversy do so in a way to avoid presenting the opposing side fairly. Actually presenting objectively the history of evolutionary and anti-evolutionary thought in a neutral but academic way is an excellent way to show the falseness of the anti-evolutionary position. Actually explaining the historical development of current economic and political thought, is the clearest way to show the real motivations of some popular views. Presenting biased history of course leads to biased conclusions. How can the reader know which side is resorting to unsupportable evidence and false logic unless their views are fully presented in detail?

People who might come here to read a controversial topic who are already certain of the rightness of their positions will not be convinced by anything said here. An imaginary reader who has never heard of American politics who should happen to read certain news sources, will recognize at once they have no good case to make, just like someone who might never have heard of some pseudo-medical treatment will be, if they see the typical advertisement for it. But people who come here in order to find out what position they should support, if they find one side is minimally treated in an unbalanced way, they will just conclude we are biased and ignore us.. If the current general opinion is correct that in current politics it is just such voters who will determine the result, we have a special obligation to be scrupulously neutral. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:People by year on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Aug 16: Great American Wiknic NYC & Beyond[edit]

August 16, 3pm: Great American Wiknic

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our annual summer Great American Wiknic, this year being held virtually.

We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!

Featuring artist-Wikimedian Sara Clugage's "Picnics: An Outside History" for a cultural exploration of picnicking, knowledge and society during the national panel in the first part. We encourage you to call in for the second part from a local park or natural site and share it on the video stream, as well as sharing your favorite picnic grub or other special foods with us.

Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. The Wiknic is taking the place of "WikiWednesday" this month, so we will also include salon and knowledge-sharing workshop aspects.

Sunday August 16 Great American Wiknic NYC.

3:00 pm - 4:00 pm online via YouTube (watch our national panel's livestream, and participate by text chat)

4:00 pm - 5:00 pm online via Zoom (participate by videoconference with NYC community)

We especially encourage folks to share your parks and foods on screen, and add your 3-minute lightning talks to our roster for the Zoom portion, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team 22:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Request on 18:27:47, 14 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Elyght[edit]

Elyght (talk · contribs)
- Draft:The UNC Charlotte Urban Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, So, the entire article needs to be changed because it doesn't seem unbiased? I just want to clarify so that I'm certain I have the correct information.

Elyght (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts only pass AfC if it appears likely that AfD would accept them as articles; the community at AfD discussions make the decision. I gave two reasons for declining to accept the article

(1) It fails to show notability. We almost never make articles about institutes within a university unless they are actually famous. I didn't make that rule--I'm just describing what would happen if I accepted the article-On the basis of 13 years experienced working with articles like this, I think it probable that it would be rejected by a group discussion at AfD. Far from being famous, it appears from the references that the institute os of only local significance.

(2)It is fundamentally promotional. The basic characteristics of promotionalism is that it provides the readers with what the organization would like to tell them In contrast, an encyclopedia article is addressed to the general reader who may have heard of the organization, and wants to know what it is and something about what it does. . A promotional article is one that resemble a web page: the practical rule is that if it would do as a web page for the organization, it won't do for the encyclopedia. There is no one particular sentence--the article is promotional throughout It is written in the manner that press agents write web pages, with their usual jargon; as some examples: "... the impact it has on citizens in Mecklenburg County." "... within the educational sphere" "...valuable information on topics of their choice." These are just examples--almost every sentence in the article is like that.

Even if were completely rewritten, it would still never pass AFd, because it is not notable , it would still not

Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in exactly the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Spicy. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, David K. Pillai, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Spicy (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Fe Writers Project (SFWP)[edit]

Please take a look at this article again. It appears that you tried to accept this article from draft space into article space. It then appears that the process of moving the article into article space and marking it as accepted was incomplete, or was interrupted. As a result, the article shows as as waiting for the approval to be closed. If you meant to accept it, then either you or I should finish the process of accepting it. It looks good to me, but I haven't provided a thorough review, so I am ready to agree with acceptance, but I don't want to let something slip in by mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it happens when I go quicker than the macro can keep up. I kniow it happens, so I try to check, but I must have missed this one. Thanks for telling me. As for notability , I think it's more likely than not, so it should at least have its chance at afd. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Verma[edit]

Please take a look at this article again. Last time you merged the Uday Foundation into Rahul Verma. I am not sure if you wanted to merged Rahul Verma into Uday Foundation. Also someone edited it erroneously and entire article is messed up. Two requests, either clean up the same as you did last time and recreate new article for Uday Foundation or merged Rahul Verma into Uday Foundation. Regards Shibanihk (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could posibly make sense to merge them in either direction, but what does not make sense is to have two articles as the content is essentially identical.Since the present articles is at the person it would be simpler to keep it there. The talk page is the place to decide this. You are correct that the article has been edited irresponsibly; it has been made overly promotional , and I have just fixed it bu removing some of the promotionalism back to the way I had it, and tightened up the wording. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will try to further clean the same with some better references. Will update you once done. Shibanihk (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check Out Article[edit]

Hey, I saw your comment on the Draft: The Havoc of Choice. I have created the author's page, Wanjiru Koinange, care to take a look and see if it's good to go?

Thanks. JW254 (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good. now merge this briefly into the article in the author. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oleh Kozerod[edit]

Hi! If & when you have a moment, love your thoughts on whether Oleh Kozerod meets WP:PROF. Trying to clear out some backlogs, but not so sure which way this one goes. Thanks StarM 19:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chhecking the articles in the other. Wikipedias, he clearly is notable I cleaned up a little, but if I have a chance, I will go back and normalize the list of publications. Thanks for asking me. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, you're always the best resource on academics. Have a good evening. StarM 01:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Draft:The Pilot Newspaper" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:The Pilot Newspaper. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#Draft:The Pilot Newspaper until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-scale undisclosed paid editing by long-standing WP user, possible cover-up by other administrator(s)[edit]

I had posted this earlier on the COI noticeboard but will be copy-pasting it to you in hopes of you offering a solution.

I am using an alt account with a proxy as I fear reprisals from what I believe to be a massive network of undisclosed paid editing by a well-known Wikipedia user and the potential cover-up by other administrator(s), who might take action against me should this post get buried.

I don't want to go into much detail as not to alert the possible persons behind the UPE and encourage them to delete evidence off-wiki but irrefutable proof has fallen on deaf years through an official channel (won't get into detail here either as not to alert the persons behind the UPE).

I don't whom to e-mail as I don't know who might be on the undisclosed paid editing scheme. Emailing the wrong persons directly would be tantamount to deleting evidence off-wiki.

This is a public statement that I hold such irrefutable proof and I believe it will be harder to disregard this should someone offer their private e-mail to receive said evidence.

I obviously cannot post this information here as that would be considered doxxing. Altaccountreportingfraud

Please provide me with your e-mail if possible so I can send over the proof that had earlier been disregarded through official channels. Altaccountreportingfraud (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot provide you with my email unless you first enable yours: I do not release it in public. But there is a better method: write directly to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org All material sent there is considered confidential, and you will be protected to the extent that it is possible. We at arb com have unfortunately dealt with a number of similar cases, and the matter will be dealt with to the extent that WP can deal with it. . However, we do not move quickly; but you should expect at least a preliminary response within a week or so. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the steadfast interest. I have just forwarded the same e-mail I had forwarded to another official channel. My only request to you would be to at least take a fast peek at the evidence presented therein as it might get deleted off-wiki and the accusations will be left without irrefutable truth. Trust me when I say: it will take you a mere 2 minutes - I am going to be very specific in the e-mail (with links and pictures). Altaccountreportingfraud (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Altaccountreportingfraud: Since you are using a disposable account for this purpose, you can name the editor you suspect. I am confident that the Wikipedians who investigate such matters will be able to independently discover the evidence to which you refer. However, I am certainly willing to look at it; you can email me at bd2412(at)hotmail.com. BD2412 T 14:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altaccountreportingfraud, if the information is online you can archive it on an website such as archive.today. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Dropped you an email, please check. @Emir of Wikipedia: I tried to do that but unfortunately it's not possible as it cannot snapshot the evidence. Altaccountreportingfraud (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have received it, and will investigate this afternoon. I can loop in DGG. BD2412 T 16:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I have emailed you. BD2412 T 17:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, Received, and the account, as I suggested, did send it to arb com under another name. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied with some additional information. I can pass that on to ArbCom as well. BD2412 T 20:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please do. Therest of this can and should go. elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Salim Mehajer on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's Retreat has been updated.[edit]

Hello, I have updated the draft of Caesar's Retreat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Caesar%27s_Retreat

Please check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.228.45 (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

‪Frank Dunn Kern‬[edit]

Many thanks for reviewing the new page ‪Frank Dunn Kern‬. Much appreciated!--MerielGJones (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also grateful for the megafast review of the page Gordon Douglas Rowley!!--MerielGJones (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I and other reviewers are making a special effort to try to review the clearly notable unexceptional articles as quickly as possible. The sooner we remove them from the stream of the many that need longer consideration, the better for all the new articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Namespace on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Semyonov's Rebellion[edit]

First and foremost, thanks for the speedy review of Semyonov's Rebellion! I'm happy to have the article published! Secondly, I was hoping to get some feedback on the writing in the article. I'd like to get better at writing exceptional articles. Could you add some suggestions to the talk page, if you have the chance? I'd appreciate it!

Best wishes, Ph03n1x77 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Semyonov's Rebellion[edit]

First and foremost, thanks for the speedy review of Semyonov's Rebellion! I'm happy to have the article published! Secondly, I was hoping to get some feedback on the writing in the article. I'd like to get better at writing exceptional articles. Could you add some suggestions to the talk page, if you have the chance? I'd appreciate it!

Best wishes, Ph03n1x77 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in process DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Smartwings QS-1125[edit]

The subject is indeed a notable aviation incident. That a chief pilot was strongly censured in an official report was remarked on as unique by Petter Hornfeldt, a pilot and respected aviation commentator.^[1]. The incident was not swept under the table but widely reported. Many accidents have been caused by deliberate inaction, omission and disdain for rules. Please see QS-1125 Talk. Thank for your tag/caution about notability of this new article. I hope it passes muster now.-Yohananw (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly entitled to remove a Prod tag. Nonetheless, I do not see how that is compatible with WP:AVIATION "The accident was fatal to humans; or The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.". However, this is not my field. Fortunately, no one person makes a final decision on keeping or deleting an article; the community does, at WP:AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smartwings QS-1125 DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hornfeldt, Petter (August 1, 2020). "Flying across Europe with a BROKEN engine! Smartwings 1125". Mentour Pilot.

ARCA-pseudoscience[edit]

Hi, there's something I wanted to clarify for the Arbitration report for next issue of The Signpost. At ARCA-Pseudoscience, you have posted a somewhat more lengthy rationale for why the community needs to decide what pseudoscience is. It's hard for me to tell if this is agreeing with the other arbs, or if you are trying to take your approach? Or maybe it's all overcome by events by the last post by GW? Can you help with my confusion? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in preparation--this is extremely important to me, and I want to check what I have written and post it tomorrow afternoon. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bri, as may be evident from that page, my views have changed somewhat in the course of discussion; I cannot write the extended essay I had hoped to here without much more time to think, and consideration of the consequences and interrelationships, but my current positions as an arb is that

1. Arb com deals only with behavior. Arb com can not determine which POVs are acceptable, or what POVs are mainstream.

2 I consider that the original pseudoscience discussion was fundamentally erroneous insofar as it attempted to deal with content, and similarly are all subsequent arb com decisions in the area

3. Arb com can determine how we conduct discussions, and when to remove troublemakers, but it can not do so on the basis of the positions they take on content. It can not declare in what fields WP considers certain positions to be correct. For example, it cannot say how WP can treat topics that may be called pseudoscience, except by insisting that people who obstruct discussion in this or any other area must be removed.

4. So in terms of the question asked, we as arbs are not entitled to say this particular field is pseudoscience, and we as arbs were never so entitled to say this about any fields whatsoever.

5 The community itself cannot declare that certain views are pseudoscience. It can only report whether they are called so by reliable sources, and it must take into account all relevant positions. This is the basic principle of NPOV, which neither the committee nor arb com can ignore. The community can determine the details of how NPOV is to be interpreted, but it is a content rule, so arb com cannot.

6. It is my opinion that the effect of declaring how WP can handle certain fields, by using Discretionary sanctions, encourages and perpetuates bias. As it works at present, rather than destroying cliques it facilitates them, by giving an inordinately strong first-mover advantage. There is not now any basis for using DS at all, in this or any other subject. It encourages people to use their bias, and makes it too difficult to stop them. It may not have been completely wrong for arb com to use DS in an earlier stage of WP, as an attempt to deal with "unblockable" editors, but this is not a problem at present, at least not in the same fashion.

7 Arb com can change the rules for conduct in an area under disruption, but only if it does it in a content-neutral way. It can for example make a field subject to 2RR, or 1RR. It can remove specific troublemakers from a discussion, or from a field, or from WP., or warn that the rules for conduct in a given field or a given discussion will be interpreted strictly, and do so in a way that makes it very difficult to appeal. These are dangerous powers, for it could do so in such a way as to selectively help one of two contending sides, and in my opinion it has done just that in some decisions. But at least it requires an agreement of a majority of the individual arbs to do so. Discretionary sanctions allows any of the individual admins to do the same, while making it almost as difficult to appeal as to appeal an arb com decision. This is too dangerous. It is possible that 8 out of 15 arbs may be biased, knowingly or not. It is inevitable that some one of 500 admins will be biased.

8. One of the responsibilities of arb com is the supervision of the actions of arbitrators, and if the committee thinks that they have been making decisions in a way that effectuates bias rather than NPOV, the committee is entitled to take action. This again is a dangerous power, for it might, and in some cases has, been used unfairly. But it remains a necessary function, and the committee must do it until some fairer scheme can be devised.

I have refused on that page to give my personal opinion of Ayurvedic medicine. I do have one. Its current practical application is pseudoscientific, but we must make allowances for cultural bias. It seems unlikely a priori that we are the only civilization on earth that understands the world correctly. Its practitioners think they are using theory based science validated by experience. The same is true for Western European medicine as practiced until about the mid 19th century: physicians thought they were using theory-based science validated by experiment and experience. In both cases, their theories were wrong , their experimental methods crude, and their ability to analyze experience inadequate--and their treatments correspondingly irrational and generally ineffective. In its historical aspect, ayurvedic medicine made no less sense than sense than any other any premodern medical theory,.

In our articles on ayurveda, the historical aspects would in my opinion would more clearly be treated separately from the current practice. In my opinion our repeated emphasis in our articles, especially the lead of the main article, that ayruveda is considered a pseudoscience is excessive, and indicates bias rather than NPOV. A proper statement is appropriate, but the present orientation of the entire article gives the reader the impression we are not actually a NPOV encyclopedia. (And I think we have made the same error in other subjects.) I would say these things in a discussion on the relevant talk page, except that I think that the mere fact that I'm an arb would affect the discussion.. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treading on your toes[edit]

I've just now declined Draft:Ann Thomson -- and immediately thereafter noticed that you said you'd accept it. I sense that the biographee is noteworthy; if you were to overrule me, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His work is in major museums, and there are references for that, which is why I accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Iván Enrique Rodríguez[edit]

Dear DGG, I am buildng a collection of the contemporary Puerto Rican composers to add to Wikipedia. This was my first article. Could you help me make it better?--MahlerLover (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahlerLover (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC) When I built the article I was following the way Robert Beaser's article was made.--MahlerLover (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:DGG I edited the article. Please let me know if it satisfy your expectations. If not, please let me know in a more specific way. Thanks so much! MahlerLover (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MahlerLover, I added a note to the draft. It's better, but there's still no major performance or recording. It may be too early in his career, but I will leaveit for others to review. This is afield of interest to me, but not expertise. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG Thanks so much for your comment! I truly appreciate your knowledgeable insight a lot! I do believe your opinion in relationship to the WP:Composer: criteria needs to be addressed within the 21st century understanding of the White Frame and systemic discrimination of composers of color in classical music. For a “major orchestra” (whatever that means, as the orchestras mentioned have yearly budgets of over 14M dollras) to consider a composer of color is inherently harder If not almost impossible due to the structure of the white frame and diversity-negating status of the system. So, when considering this article and the national and international achievements (such as the historic Cabrillo Festival of Contemporary Music) of this composer as well as the other composers of color that I intend to write articles about, has to be understood within a place of deep knowledge of race and anti-racism. Thanks again for everything! I’ve learned a lot! MahlerLover (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,, MahlerLover, Ido understand the situation. The solution within WP is to make sure first that we do have articles on those individuals from other geographies who most clearly meat the conventional criteria, before trying to convince WPedians to include others. I have always been in favor of flexibility here, but the best strategy is to work from the top. If you think I haven't taken this enough into account, the way to proceed is to build up the article as strongly as possible and then resubmit. Let me know. I will do what I can to help you, but remember that I'm not the judge--the community at an AfD is the final judge, and all I can do is predict. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Danny Kabakibo[edit]

Dear DGG, This is the second article of mine that you have declined. The first was about Katya Cengel (a female author from the biographies needing done list). I re-wrote that article but it has not yet been re-reviewed. So I wanted to work on a new one, I thought I would try a different type of person, so a man from s technologies list. I thought I did what you had instructed. I used all very known reliable outside resources. I wrote about him and not his accolades. I am confused as to what I am doing wrong. Can you please help me understand what the problem is?

people become notable because of their accomplishments, and tthe article needs to be focussed around their accomplishments. This article, however, is focused around his youthful hobbies and opinions. He has since created a software application, bu tthere is no indication tha it is an important invention or hat it is in significant use. Sources showing notability must be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Most of the sources here, 1,2, 3,5, 7, an 8, although they may look like newspapers, aren't. They are PR outlets,. Their stories are entirely based upon what the person chooses to say about themselves. to see this more clearly, look at some of the other stories in the publication. You will find none which are genuine news accounts under editorial control. References 6 and 9 are geneuine news publications. However, their stories about him are exactly the same as the PR in the straightforward PR publications--they're just what he says about himself. News sources in all countries do this: they print press release as well as actual news, and the profession of PR is in large part devoted to placing these stories. One way to see this is to look at the extravagant claims made--if they were genuine, there would be real news accounts in major newspapers about his accomplishments, Another is to compare the accounts--they ar almost identical, including even the headlines. They're all modifications of the same press handout.

In general, taking topics from the list of desired articles needs to be done carefully--anyone may place a topic there. Since PR writers know that if they write the WP articles directly, they will find the articles rejected and be banned as undeclared paid editors, this has become a common trick for inducing good-faith wikipedians to do the work for free. But the results are indistinguishable from paid editing. The best way of finding topics is list prepared for editathons, or based on genuine news accounts that you see yourself. Before you start, make sure you have at least 2, and better 3, excellent reliable independent sources from books by major publishers or major magazines or newspapers with national coverage. You will also find list of desired articles at the various Wikiproject pages. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cengal may be notable , but the article didn't show it, and neither does your revision. Notability for a reporter is very difficult to demonstrate unless they win an individual pulitzer or something equally important. Notability for an author is much easier--it depends on the reviews, and the first indication of whether there are likely to be substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads The article didn't give it , but I should have looked further. The books are mostly from University of Nebraska Press, or one of its subimprints, which is a very good sign. I shall now add this information to the article. The place to find the information is WorldCat. Of the places where you took the reviews. none is amjor publication, such as the NYT book review. Pacific Standard is an online environmental magazine, and is the best of them--see our article on it--not that despite what out article says, it is still active--I shall have to update it . NY Journal of books is of undetermined reliability(--it is not New aYork Review of Books, a magazine of very high prestige. ). Judging by its Web site [2]. we need an article on it. The article needs to focus on her as an author, not a journalist. To some degree, the nuber of copies of books in worldcat libraries can indicate significance, tho its not a formal criterion for notability . I made a start at that, and accepted it. You will find listings fro additional reviewsof her books in Worldcat, and there is some material to find a reference for. And check the exact name of the field in which she received a degree. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The basic skill for you to acquire is to be careful and skeptical about results found on Google. You need to read them, and find out about the publication they are coming from. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your response. You gave me exactly the information I was looking for and I am sure I can improve both articles. I really appreciate your time. I would also appreciate very much if you could take a look at another draft of mine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Josh_Clarke_(American_football) I would rather improve it now than later after it is declined. Again, thanks so much for your answer, it helped a lot! I am very new, so I have no doubt I have plenty to learn here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJSPN (talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiJSPN, in some fields I know just enough to be aware that I should stay clear of them to avoid foolish blunders, and sports is one of them. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you- I did find an answer to that. It is simply too soon. I am working on bettering the references for the Cengel page and possibly trying again with the Kabakibo page IF I can find good references or maybe something totally new. I appreciate all of your help so much!WikiJSPN (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Draft:Scott Waldman and pending acceptance[edit]

Hi DGG, thanks for your revision of Draft:Scott Waldman. I wonder if you have the capacity to accept/decline the article and move it to mainspace if accepted. Regards. Neuralia (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your views and works, happy to read your user page. Rahulsoman^{talk - contribs} 23:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed because concern was answered elsewhere[edit]

Seeking advice[edit]

I am sure you have plenty to do without answering my questions, but you are the only one I know to ask. Obviously, I did something way worse than just write a bad article, but I am unaware of what I did. You declined my articles and I wanted to improve them and ask questions. I thought that was the right thing to do, I thought I was asking my questions in the right places, but apparently I was not (part of why I am coming to ask you now). I really like Wikipedia, I use it all the time. I just wanted to help and to add something- to contribute. I get that I messed up and used the wrong sources. I really didn't mean to. I really didn't mean to pick bad people to try and write about. I thought the lists I had found had been vetted, as to the first two, and the football player, I had looked for information on and couldn't find a wikipage, so I thought I would share what I had. I never meant to offend anyone or step on toes. If there is some unwritten rule about who can and can't make pages about what or who, I didn't know! There are at least two other people here that have left me pretty harsh messages- not fair criticism and explanation like yours, but sarcasm and clear annoyance. I can tell that, obviously, I did something that offended these people. I wanted to make a contribution to something that I cared about, something I could be proud of, and I am left feeling like crap like I should not have even tried. I deleted my drafts, obviously, my making them was a huge part of what I did wrong- but why? When we are supposed to be bold and ask questions, how did I go so wrong in doing that, that I have caused people to dislike me? Any advice would help, and I am sorry for bothering you with my problems, but I really wanted to be here. Also, if I need to delete my Katya Cengel page to make this ill will stop, I will gladly do so, I just wasn't sure how to or I already would have. WikiJSPN (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)JSPN [reply]

Also, though, thank you for your explanations and honest criticism. I didn't realize there was this huge issue with paid editors or undeclared editors and all of that, so I had no idea what I was doing that looked so wrong. Fortunately, it has been explained and I really am sorry I had a rough start at picking subjects and learning about references. I promise, I was not just trying to make your job harder! I have removed my drafts, and while I may try at them later on, I will do so with much better references, or not at all. I will take all you said into consideration and continue to try and improve on the Cengel article (I have enlisted help with that as well). I am not a paid undeclared editor. I want to be here and help. I hope you can see I just started on the wrong foot and give me a chance to redeem myself a bit. WikiJSPN (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN[reply]

Fine. Unfortunately, the prevalence of promotional editing, not yjust on WP,but in theworld in general, tends to lead new editor sinto writing according to whatthey have mostly seen, which is promotionalism . I try to distinguish, but I have made mistakes in both directions, and know of no infallible guide for this. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as one of our conventions, please never remove material, even your own, from someone else's talk page, or from an article or discussion page. If you wish to withdraw it, the usual method is to enclose it in <s> </s> tags,which I have just done. Not having it there are makes it harder to follow the discussion for anybody later , so I am restoring it. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, just trying not to waste time or be redundant. WikiJSPN (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN[reply]

Robert Peckham (historian)[edit]

Hello. I'm curious as to why you moved Robert Peckham (historian) to article space. It had, and still has, zero independent sources, albeit a plausible claim to baseline notability. Books written by the subject aside, the personal biographical details are completely unsourced, and the article creator's edit history seems to be nearly entirely based on the Peckham family. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC) He has written 3 books published by respectable academic presses, one of them being Cambridge University Press.That makes him notable as an academic.The publications are independent sources. They are not given in standard format, but I never decline an article for that. His key achievements as such as adequately sourced. The routine facts of his education are not, but probably could be easily enough from a CV, which we accept as sourcing for such unexceptional material. I will accept or write an article about anyone who publishes a book by CUP. The time to do the remainder of the fixing is in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created a Page for Atsuhiro Osuka[edit]

Sir, Created a page for Prof. Atsuhiro Osuka. He is a academic scientist working in the field of chemistry. So please go through it. Kindly spare some time for this article if possible. Any improvements further needed in language or content please let me know. Waiting for reply Rahulsoman^{talk - contribs} 21:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see the draft for my advice. I put it there so others will see it also. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

updated based on your comments sir. Given reply to comments in talk session of Draft:Atsuhiro_Osuka. Rahulsoman^{talk - contribs} 13:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the draft will be reviewed r in the ordinary course of events within the next month or two . If I reviewed on request, it would be unfair to everyone else. ButI shall give it another look tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of International Cricket Centuries by Tom Latham[edit]

Hi there if I create a link to the page you declined (title) on the page Tom Latham will the page you declined then be accepted? question by User: FinzUp19.

FinzUp19, I see no reason why it cannot be integraed into the main article on him. But another reviewer might feel differently; no one admin here makes the final decision. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:46:41, 30 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Legalife103[edit]

Legalife103 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Smilebox (Company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there! Thanks for reviewing my article drafe. Can you please give me some tips on how to improve it? I did find external sources and not just press releases and added them to the entry. What else can I do in your opinion? I tried to create this entry as simple as possible (only facts, backed by external links).

Thanks! Legalife103 (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legalife103 (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked aagain; the problems are just the same--see my note on the draft. Frankly, there's nothing further I think it likely that you can do to get this accepted. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piper D. Griffin[edit]

Greetings. Twinkle must have had a hiccup with your AfD nom here, because no discussion page was created. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 21:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Finngall, it happens when it encounters any non-standard sequence of doing things.But rather than correcting it, I thought again:

I had started to list this for AfD, on the basis that her current position is not notable. However, this is now the beginning of September, and she is the nominee of a major political party for an election in early November that might change this compeltely. I have therefore decided to hold off nominating for AfD. That need not of course inhibit anyone else who might wish to do so. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1,2,3-Benzothiazole[edit]

I'm not sure that it was wise to accept 1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole as created by User:Nihaal The Wikipedian. A number of more experienced editors including User:Graeme Bartlett, User:DMacks and myself have been trying to encourage him following his first submission of methyl hexanoate and 2,1,3-Benzothiadiazole but he has been fairly unresponsive to our suggestions (see his talk page and that for Graeme). In particular, he does not seem to grasp the concept of WP:RS and persists in using Pubchem as a reference rather than drilling down to the actual sources required. In a number of other ways he has shown naivety, for example in applying for adminship "here". — basically trying to run before he can walk. We must indeed encourage youthful enthusiasm but not, I think, to the point where it repeatedly creates poor articles. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are probably right, that the general concept of notability of chemical compounds would be better tested with a stronger article. I'm going to reconsider tonorrow. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. As a matter of fact, I think that the compound in question probably will be notable enough. It's just that the new article doesn't yet do it justice by showing this and I'd like Nihaal to learn how to get it to that state. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull:..I am in support of Michael`s comment as source number 3 tells more about these chemicals and also how effective it is.Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so what do people wnat me to do: return to draft for improvement, or to let someone else improve it. I cannot present do the work myself. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihaal The Wikipedian:I think it would be best to return to draft for improvement and let Nihaal work further on it, with further advice from me and others if he needs it. I certainly don't think you need to personally get involved with editing it. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done. I leavethe rest to you. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Submission of Draft[edit]

I have removed promotional words in this Draft: Amina Namadi Sambo, sir I would think it can be submitted as the submitted bottom were disabled by you Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- CHECK

Editing news 2020 #4[edit]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool[edit]

The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.

More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[3]

The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).

The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.

Next: New discussion tool[edit]

Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 17[edit]

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (July and August 2020).

Scripts Submit your new/improved script here

Yet another Articles for creation helper script ("AFCH"), a gadget used by Articles for creation reviewers, is this month's featured script

Opencooper's collapseBots declutters talk pages by collapsing comments made by bots

SD0001's GAR-helper is a script to easily create a GAR nomination and carry out the necessary related steps

SD0001's shortdescs-in-category can be used to view short descriptions of pages in a category

WikiMacaroons's Talk to Wiki allows for voice-activated functionality and navigation of Wikipedia

WikiMacaroons's AutoShortDesc simplifies the addition of short descriptions to pages

IagoQnsi's ipareader adds a button next to IPA pronunciations to have them read out by a text-to-speech program

Awesome Aasim's xfdvote makes it easier to participate in XFD discussions

BrandonXLF's CitationStyleMarker adds "CS1" or "CS2" beside citations to show their style with an optional toggle

GeneralNotability's spihelper a script to help CheckUsers, SPI clerks, and patrolling admins with sockpuppet investigation case pages

Evad37's TimestampDiffs adds a link at the end of every comment to the diff in which it was added

Twinkle has a number of improvements including additional redirect category templates

Updates to Enterprisey's reply-link include compatibility fixes with Mdaniels5757's markAdmins script and Kephir's unclutter script

Evad37's rater is now at version 2.6.0, which updates including OOUI tweaks and the inclusion of banners for inactive projects

Miscellaneous

If anyone would like to help contribute to this newsletter, please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Scripts++

Pending requests

A script to simplify addition of "connected contributor" templates to talk pages
A script to simplify removal of the "persondata" template on mlwiki
...and many more, all available at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests

Stay safe --DannyS712 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hornfeldt, Petter (August 1, 2020). "Flying across Europe with a BROKEN engine! Smartwings 1125". Mentour Pilot.

[1]