User talk:DGG/Archive 166 Nov. 2020

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

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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


Appian Corporation[edit]

Hello, I'm reaching out because you added a {{Cleanup-PR}} flag to Appian Corporation but you did not note why. For full transparency, I have a declared COI and have been working with other editors to update the page through talk page requests. Can you elaborate on the part(s) of the article you are mainly concerned about in relation to the flag? I'd love to help cleanup any concerning language or content. Thank you! JMGAppian (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template's wording is a little unfortunate, because it's the one we use for too many things. It basically means, in this case, that the article resembles a company web page, but not to the extent of being downright advertising. The following changes would help:
  1. What we need are substantial 3rd party indepedent reliable published sources, not blogs or postings or mere notices, especially notices of sales or of funding--see WP:NCORP for the current rules. About half the references are mere notices, and a numberof other promotional . 4 or 5 strong references are better than 42 weak ones.
  2. Try not to sound like a list of products,
  3. Don't use references like #20 where the article, though in PCWeek, is actually the head of the company giving a walk-through about his product, rather than being a product review written by an independent reviewer. Reference 2 rather surprised me. I didn't expect to see such blatant PR is the Washington Post--now I know better. But the WaPo is still basically honest--it says it's just quoting the company. That does not count as independent. Be careful with Forbes: ref 40 is written by a "contributor", not by their staff. It's not subject to their usual editorial supervision, and therefore not reliable.
  4. try not to write as a list of one-sentence paragraphs.
  5. Try not to use the company name as much. Generally "it" works very well.
  6. Remove poorly sourced claims or puffery--the "leader" in the first paragraph turns out to mean only one of 11. The term should usually be limited to mean 1st or possible top 2 or 3. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFC[edit]

I tend to not clear the duplicates in Draft space if the article doesn't meet the guidelines to be accepted, mainly because, so if the person in working on the article wants to add to the article, they can do that, and remove the duplicate section themselves when they resubmit their articles. But either way, it's just sitting in draft space, and It's not fatal for the article to be doubled. But it doesn't really matter either way. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and is EN wiki loading slow for you too? Or is it just me? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it doesn't matter much, but I have a tendency to do fixes that affect the basic structure myself, if only so I can understand what I'm reviewing. This was a simple one, but if it looks notable and would take more complex reorganization, I do it. I k now I do this more than most reviewers--it wasnt meant as blame, but as explanation to the contributor . ,
enWP is fast as usual for me here. NYC, FIOS, recent iMac, Safari. The AFCH macro, on the other hand, is almost always too slow. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been spending most of my time on the Simple English Wikipedia, I'm always shocked by the size and complex language EN wiki uses everytime I come and visit! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it as trying to lift a set of the printed Brittanica with one hand. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

It seems to have been awhile since anyone has thanked you for all the hard work you do at AfC. Your willingness to help new editors, and to take on tough cases has not gone un-noticed. Thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your kind advice to improve Draft:Louis Tartaglia[edit]

Dear DGG, given your experience in the edition of academic biographies and your good disposition to help learning editors like myself, I would like to request your advice and details to improve my project Draft:Louis Tartaglia. The case may be unusual in as much as the biographed person combines two dissimilar although complementary occupations: scientist and entrepreneur. I hope your advice will serve to improve the article with a view to its eventual move onto main space. Many thanks.

submitted 08:36, November 2, 2020‎ bu User:Neuralia
Don't use jargon: "help launch " , "help found", " seminal","began his research path ", "start, build, and initially manage"-- a trio like that is Dept of Defense jargon.
Don't use vague terms. The word "several" is meaningless. "described important molecular connections"
we don't say " A brief account of Tartaglia's career is visible on his Bloomberg profile.", but just link to it, or give it as an external link.
Give his whole career chronologically,
Avoid wordiness not "Tartaglia´s further research went on to clone and characterize a number of other genes important in obesity and diabetes" but He also characterized the X, Y and Z genes. wwithooth a link to the papers. The coauthors will be found in the link, not the article. don't say
you may not make therapeutic predictions "dy, expected to constitute a novel target for anti-obesity therapy in humans.[18]" is unacceptable
If you want to talk about citations, do it objectively, in a lsit of most cited papers.
" this discovery was announced on the front page of the New York Times " is over-enthusiastic for any work lesser in stature than Nobel-prize level.
scientific papers are cited with a formal citation, as in ref 14 not just to the database like pubchem as in ref 24, or 12
bizjournals, is PR
a MIT magazine dsecribing its own peoples work is PR, not 3rd party journalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Callan & Callan Method site[edit]

Hi DGG

I've uploaded a new photo for Robin Callan one that came with permission from the actual Callan Method company. I hope that both pages can now be published, I await confirmation.

Many Thanks. Robert Hercules (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

are you describing the general method "Callan method"., in lower case, a a method proposed by Callen, and presumably can be taught be anyone who learns how to do it , for example by reading his books, --and which is also taught by a number of schools who have been in some fashion "Accredited" by someone, & which some organization presumably originally authorized by him call "Accredited Schools".
or the Callan Method in upper case, a method which, though known to the public through his books, can be taught properly only by a certain group of "Accredited Schools" accredited by some organization in a tradition apparently derived from him.
If you mean the former, remove most of the material about the organization. or make it clear that the method is taught by this group, but also by others. If the organization claims nobody but them is authorized to use the method (lower case), say so explicitly, and indicate how this is enforced and if there are any legal protections, or any cases.
at the very least if you say " Accredited Schools", say accredited by whom.
If you clarify Call m/Method , I might approve it. If I don't , I will leave it for someone else. I am leaving the bio for someone else. If it is accepted, it will go to afd and in my opinion probably be deleted. It is not my job as a reviewer to decide, but to predict what the community will decide. But it is also my job to deal with articles I think unclear, regardless of when they are submitted. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Appian Corporation[edit]

Hello, I'm reaching out because you added a {{Cleanup-PR}} flag to Appian Corporation but you did not note why. For full transparency, I have a declared COI and have been working with other editors to update the page through talk page requests. Can you elaborate on the part(s) of the article you are mainly concerned about in relation to the flag? I'd love to help cleanup any concerning language or content. Thank you! JMGAppian (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template's wording is a little unfortunate, because it's the one we use for too many things. It basically means, in this case, that the article resembles a company web page, but not to the extent of being downright advertising. The following changes would help:
  1. What we need are substantial 3rd party indepedent reliable published sources, not blogs or postings or mere notices, especially notices of sales or of funding--see WP:NCORP for the current rules. About half the references are mere notices, and a numberof other promotional . 4 or 5 strong references are better than 42 weak ones.
  2. Try not to sound like a list of products,
  3. Don't use references like #20 where the article, though in PCWeek, is actually the head of the company giving a walk-through about his product, rather than being a product review written by an independent reviewer. Reference 2 rather surprised me. I didn't expect to see such blatant PR is the Washington Post--now I know better. But the WaPo is still basically honest--it says it's just quoting the company. That does not count as independent. Be careful with Forbes: ref 40 is written by a "contributor", not by their staff. It's not subject to their usual editorial supervision, and therefore not reliable.
  4. try not to write as a list of one-sentence paragraphs.
  5. Try not to use the company name as much. Generally "it" works very well.
  6. Remove poorly sourced claims or puffery--the "leader" in the first paragraph turns out to mean only one of 11. The term should usually be limited to mean 1st or possible top 2 or 3. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate you taking the time to break this down, and I do agree that these are all clear areas for improvement. These are issues that were already on the page prior to my involvement and there's only so much I feel I can reasonably ask at a time through talk page requests so these issues fell to the wayside. I'll draft up these changes and see about getting those implemented. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your feedback! JMGAppian (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

AFC[edit]

I tend to not clear the duplicates in Draft space if the article doesn't meet the guidelines to be accepted, mainly because, so if the person in working on the article wants to add to the article, they can do that, and remove the duplicate section themselves when they resubmit their articles. But either way, it's just sitting in draft space, and It's not fatal for the article to be doubled. But it doesn't really matter either way. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and is EN wiki loading slow for you too? Or is it just me? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it doesn't matter much, but I have a tendency to do fixes that affect the basic structure myself, if only so I can understand what I'm reviewing. This was a simple one, but if it looks notable and would take more complex reorganization, I do it. I k now I do this more than most reviewers--it wasnt meant as blame, but as explanation to the contributor . ,
enWP is fast as usual for me here. NYC, FIOS, recent iMac, Safari. The AFCH macro, on the other hand, is almost always too slow. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been spending most of my time on the Simple English Wikipedia, I'm always shocked by the size and complex language EN wiki uses everytime I come and visit! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it as trying to lift a set of the printed Brittanica with one hand. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you![edit]

It seems to have been awhile since anyone has thanked you for all the hard work you do at AfC. Your willingness to help new editors, and to take on tough cases has not gone un-noticed. Thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your kind advice to improve Draft:Louis Tartaglia[edit]

Dear DGG, given your experience in the edition of academic biographies and your good disposition to help learning editors like myself, I would like to request your advice and details to improve my project Draft:Louis Tartaglia. The case may be unusual in as much as the biographed person combines two dissimilar although complementary occupations: scientist and entrepreneur. I hope your advice will serve to improve the article with a view to its eventual move onto main space. Many thanks.

submitted 08:36, November 2, 2020‎ bu User:Neuralia
Don't use jargon: "help launch " , "help found", " seminal","began his research path ", "start, build, and initially manage"-- a trio like that is Dept of Defense jargon.
Don't use vague terms. The word "several" is meaningless. "described important molecular connections"
we don't say " A brief account of Tartaglia's career is visible on his Bloomberg profile.", but just link to it, or give it as an external link.
Give his whole career chronologically,
Avoid wordiness not "Tartaglia´s further research went on to clone and characterize a number of other genes important in obesity and diabetes" but He also characterized the X, Y and Z genes. wwithooth a link to the papers. The coauthors will be found in the link, not the article. don't say
you may not make therapeutic predictions "dy, expected to constitute a novel target for anti-obesity therapy in humans.[18]" is unacceptable
If you want to talk about citations, do it objectively, in a lsit of most cited papers.
" this discovery was announced on the front page of the New York Times " is over-enthusiastic for any work lesser in stature than Nobel-prize level.
scientific papers are cited with a formal citation, as in ref 14 not just to the database like pubchem as in ref 24, or 12
bizjournals, is PR
a MIT magazine dsecribing its own peoples work is PR, not 3rd party journalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Callan & Callan Method site[edit]

Hi DGG

I've uploaded a new photo for Robin Callan one that came with permission from the actual Callan Method company. I hope that both pages can now be published, I await confirmation.

Many Thanks. Robert Hercules (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

are you describing the general method "Callan method"., in lower case, a a method proposed by Callen, and presumably can be taught be anyone who learns how to do it , for example by reading his books, --and which is also taught by a number of schools who have been in some fashion "Accredited" by someone, & which some organization presumably originally authorized by him call "Accredited Schools".
or the Callan Method in upper case, a method which, though known to the public through his books, can be taught properly only by a certain group of "Accredited Schools" accredited by some organization in a tradition apparently derived from him.
If you mean the former, remove most of the material about the organization. or make it clear that the method is taught by this group, but also by others. If the organization claims nobody but them is authorized to use the method (lower case), say so explicitly, and indicate how this is enforced and if there are any legal protections, or any cases.
at the very least if you say " Accredited Schools", say accredited by whom.
If you clarify Call m/Method , I might approve it. If I don't , I will leave it for someone else. I am leaving the bio for someone else. If it is accepted, it will go to afd and in my opinion probably be deleted. It is not my job as a reviewer to decide, but to predict what the community will decide. But it is also my job to deal with articles I think unclear, regardless of when they are submitted. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I've updated the article based on your feedback, I hope this is now ok for publishing.Robert Hercules (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hercules, Well, you did make it clear you were talking about the Method as a brand, not the method. "The method, and the supply of books and materials required to teach it, is now restricted to schools and teachers who have been specifically trained and approved by the company." The method, as described in his publications, is not restricted to the accredited schools, tho the distribution of the textbooks might be. "Callan Method logos which are registered and protected by copyright." is confusing, because it's only the copyright and trademark which is protected, not the method. It's advocacy both for the method and the Method at this point., but at least it's clear that this is what you are trying to write. Before I review it again, you might want to make another pass removing adjectives. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments I've removed the reference to copyright and clarified the restrictions regarding books and materials. I hope this is clear enough and can now be published. Robert Hercules (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I just wanted to check with you that the editing of this page last week successfully meets the criteria. Thank you. Robert Hercules (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitted Draft:Louis Tartaglia after issues hopefully solved[edit]

Dear DGG, thank you very much for your detailed advice to improve my project Draft:Louis Tartaglia. I have made the changes to hopefully solve the issues indicated. Your further help will be greatly appreciated to re-review the project and perhaps move it onto mainspace. Best regards. User:: Neuralia

Good enough to accept, but the lede and sec.2 still need removal of vague adjectives and claims. I may get to it. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amended content to remove anything that could be deemed promotional[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to review the article I submitted. Based on your feedback I've now updated the content to remove anything that I think could be deemed promotional. I'm hoping the amends I've made tackle the issues you flagged so the article can now be published. If you could let me know your thoughts that would be much appreciated.

Thanks again, Silk0071! (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft I dealt with is Draft:Alex Loven, a related draft of yours about his company Draft:Net World Sports, has been reviewed by Theroadislong. They are both unsatisfactory. These are two more pieces of evidence that it is extremely difficult for people with paid COI to write acceptable articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jerry B. Brown[edit]

Hi DGG. Since you’ve recently reviewed this draft, you might want to take a look at WP:THQ#Draft:Jerry B. Brown. Perhaps you can help this editor out. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New York Poetry Forum[edit]

I'm not in favor of moving this to draft, as that leaves a gap in the listing of a national structure of poetry societies affiliated with the National Federation of State Poetry Societies. The notability is not invested in the individual affiliates, but with the national structure. This particular entry has very little to no online presence and it may remain only a stub, but it's still part of the overall structure and removing it has left red links. I've emailed the listed officer to request further information, but there may not be a response, so this may not be incubated any further. Please move it back to stub status. Thank you. Pkeets (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm autoconfirmed so I can move it myself, but I'd rather not get in an edit war with you. Pkeets (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PKeets, it is possible, but very unusual to restore a draft to mainspace other than through the AfC process. Were you to do that, I would not revert you, but I would nominate the article for deletion. The best thing you can do, as I know you realize, is to add third party references. As for gaps in the structure, I checked a few of the others and also found no third party references. I have great respect for your project in adding articles on notable women, but it is quite rare here for us to have articles for state branches of any national association: I looked at the most important one I could think of, the NAACP, and we do not seem to have articles on any of its branches. Nor do we have articles on any of the branches of National Organization of Women. Of course it might happen that a particular branch will have sufficient substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not blogs or postings or mere notices to be notable, DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're going to criticize the whole body of work? Every little town in the US has an article, right? - third party sources or no. Plus, I see above you have a record of doing this to experienced editors. These are only stubs, and I'm sure the individual chapters can add a lot to them - literary organizations are seldom at a loss for words. Some chapters look to be very active and other like NY, not so much, but still this looks to be an important resource for poets in the US, and Wikipedia has apparently been totally unresponsive to it until now. I'll check around for more sources. I've already added a couple to NY. Pkeets (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not I who do this. If I nominate for deletion, I leave it to the community to decide. Normally after I nominate an afd, I respond at most once more in the discussion, unless there's a particular special point. Sometimes they agree with me, sometimes they don't. All of my experience can't convince the community when they disagree. I managed 12 years ago to change consensus to accept articles on all high schools, and then 2 years ago the community decided differently, and I argued both the RfC and its interpretation for a few months, and then accepted it had changed, and articles on which I along with a few others had spent years working for have been getting deleted. For that matter, on the very example you give, I did indeed try to keep the policy that every inhabited or formerly inhabited populated place, should have an article, but the consensus again has changed against me, and I no longer argue ones I know I'll probably lose.
I think in general in the last few years the general feeling here has changed to avoid very small articles. Good encyclopedias have been made with them, and also by combining into large articles. Either way can work, and I can work with either. But nobody can work effectively without some kind of consistency.
What you see above is not my fighting against stubs. What you find in my talk is my fighting against promotionalism . That is something which matters. Whatever the notability standards , this will still be an encyclopedia. If we included promotionalism, then we're just another version of the googles. That's something I care about.
Similarly, I care about NPOV. With articles biased towards one side of an issue, we won't be an honest encyclopedia, and there's no reason for anyone who wants to learn the actual facts about the world to come here.
But article size and similar things, they can be done in many different ways without our losing our purpose. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about Wikipedia being a resources where people can quickly find information? I personally don't read long articles. If it's really long, I just check the lede. Pkeets (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Quickly find information" is the opposite of "encyclopedic" it's the difference between an Encyclopedic dictionary. such a the one-volume Columbia Encyclopedia. and printed works like the Brittanica.The practical place online to quickly find information is not Wikipedia , but Google.
But in an encyclopedia , there are multiple equally valid ways of arranging the material: related short articles, a few long articles, WP:Summary style, a mix depending on the amount of information available, a mix depending upon the perceived importance, a mix determined by the people working on each broad topic area, or (at the low end of validity), a mix depending on the preferences of the people doing the writing for each individual article,. My. own preference is WP:Summary style for substantial topics, and Annotated lists for others, but that's just me.
In any case, as I said a little above, I'm much more concerned about questions Reliable sourcing, NPOV, and avoiding promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ozaroo[edit]

Hi, you declined the draft with the comment: "adv,corp". Could you please be more specific about what can be changed/improved in order to get it approved? This a well known business with many references from third party websites. Thanks. Bretalins (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is likely grounds for a UPE block. MER-C 21:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did block this editor, participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimetri Hogan (2nd nomination) was too obvious to ignore. MER-C 15:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Manoj Kumar Verma[edit]

Sir your comment on my article "routine position" doesn't explain anything to me. Please say what do you suggest of making good on my article. Thank you

Regards,

🇮🇳DRCNSINDIA (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having already declined it once, I shall leave further action to others. And if the article is accepted, this is just a preliminary step, for the final decision will be up to the community, if the article is challenged at WP:AFD. You as well as the previous editor(s) are obviously contributor with a conflict of interest, although you have not formally declared it DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Eastman[edit]

I am not sure what you are asking, but if you want to accept the draft based on general notability, I do not object. The election is over, and some defeated candidates are notable as a result of their campaigns, or for other reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I would have already done it, but I'm trying to figure out how to keep the complete history of the article, which will otherwise disappear behind the redirects that I shall have to delete. . DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shi'i Reformation in Iran: The Life and Theology of Shari'at Sangelaji[edit]

As to Draft:Shi'i Reformation in Iran: The Life and Theology of Shari'at Sangelaji, the two sources are independent and reliable. Also two sources is enough to show notability according to wp:notability (book). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shall leave it to others to judge at this point. If it is accepted, I am going to suggest merging the information , along with the separate articles on all the other books. This will produce one really strong article on the author ,which is much more valuable to the readers than the present scattered coverage. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the point of this suggestion. We can merge all stub articles with some other articles to produce really really strong articles. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And when it makes sense, we should. Especially an author and their books, unless the books are separately notable. There is no benefit in having a multiplicity of small articles that just recite the facts of publication and link to the reviews. I appreciate the work you've been doing of philosophers and other academics, but this is a field where many people who do not understand the academic world frequently challenge articles, and I think it would be of particular importance to make the author articles as strong as possible. Looking at your talk p. & contributions, you're aware of the problem. I'll help you as much as I can with challenges--I think I could have help keep a few that have been deleted had I spotted them-- but only 1 article per author. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. In this case "the book is separately notable according to objective criteria determined by wp:notability. The challenges you are referring to are the result of low knowledge of users about notability policies. I can discuss the challenged articles one by one.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have written guidelines, but they only indicate what we usually do (see WP:GUIDELINE ) The effective guidelines are what we actually do, for most guidelines lead to considerable room for interpretation, and and this is particularly prominent in the notability guidelines and subguidelines. The interpretation is done by the community in discussions, and determined by consensus. Only in theory are they "objective"--determining notability is one of the most subjective and disputed areas of Wikipedia. We rarely accept articles on books that barely pass the relevant subguideline, but redirect or merge them. My role as a reviewer is not to determine notability , but to predict what the consensus would be at a discussion. I do not think this likely to have consensus.
But in any case I urge you to consider the benefits of have the coverage of the author's books in one place. It will make a better encyclopedia that way DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is very explicit about the books and there is no room for interpretation. With such argument as yours (what we actually do) we can surpass/abrogate all the guidelines because they are not what we actually do! I don't understand it when you say "it is not my role to determine notability". You have deleted my articles by doubting about their "notability". By the way, you have nothing to lose in what you do with others' articles; it is the efforts of creators that will become vain. This is not fair. What can we do? Even when we create articles according to explicit guidelines you can simply and comfortably delete them. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not delete the article . I moved it to draft. I think the consensus at AfD would be merge/redirect. What It usually is if there's not something more than this to say. The alternative, would be for me to have simply done that myself. What matters is whether the book is covered, not whether it has a separate article. What I am interested in is having good articles in Wikipedia , not an immense number of relatively trivial ones. Stubs can be justified, but only when there's no logical place to merge them. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you "deleted" the article (it does not "exist" on Wikipedia as a free online encyclopedia) and moved it to draft. You could move it to my email, your email, a blog, etc; what is the difference when my efforts (what I intended) are void? I really really wish you created an AFD for it (and for all my articles moved to draft space). Then I could have the views of other people in a specified time. The concepts "good" or "trivial" are subjective ideas here. I cannot understand them because I have other definitions for them and they are not talkable. What can be (more) objective are the guidelines and policies and notability criteria. We can "talk" about them. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Any one of the several hundred reviewers can move an article out of draft, if they think it appropriate. I do not have a veto.
(2) I've been trying to get our notability requirements more objective for 13 years now. The consensus has unfortunately been consistently otherwise. I am obliged to evaluate and give you advice according to what the consensus view is, not what I would like it to be.
I see no point in continuing this general discussion here. Since it's my talk p., I get the last word. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Production sets[edit]

Hello – no objection to your objection to deleting Production sets – but did you notice that when the page was created it was for a purpose unrelated to Production set? I understand the guidance as meaning that if the user might be uncertain whether to use the plural, it helps to have articles for both, one of which is a redirect. Obviously no one is going to wonder whether to look for ‘Production sets’ rather than ‘Production set’.

But if you weren’t under any misapprehension... fine, I’m happy to let the article hang around forever. I’ve done my duty and you’ve done yours in expressing a view. Colin.champion (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

acytually, I assumed it was about the actual (film) topic. Possible there's some way of wording that it could bethe plural of either, tho we don't usually do disam pages for 2 articles. ? DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was also an article for ‘film set’ which redirected to Set construction. I made an effort to clean things up a bit (with no response from filmmaking editors)... and not being committed to filmmaking I’m happy to duck out. Colin.champion (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in film, but this has had enough attention. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lika[edit]

Peter Lika is undersourced, sure. When I saw that I placed "him" on my to-do-list (user page) the earliest time I was ready, next week that is. Your move to draft pushes me to change my plans and do it today (because I hate to see all these links broken), postponing other things. End of rant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you organize WP stuff by the time you plan to do something? somehow I never thought of that. Maybe that will work for me. Nothing else ever has. DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I try - hard, and unsuccessfully, because people keep dying - to stick to one article per day. So, today, that was Peter Lika, and with the help of KittenKlub and Grimes2, that should now be ready for mainspace. (I admit that was a bad translation from something promotional, - I hadn't looked into the prose.) Please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
still needs reviews. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
please explain, reviews are nice, and will be added, but are not needed for notability of a person mentioned in encyclopedias - before adding, I want to expand an article for 22 Nov - Britten's birthday on St. Cecilia's Day, something I try every year. Then - as I just found out - another German died, with a sad tag. - patience, please, and he's back to mainspace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
of course they're not needed in this case, but we tell the beginners to always use them, and for most contemporary people they are very much needed, so it helps to use them ourself. I don't mean to bug you about it. and, to be frank, I hadn't notice the article was by you & alain. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


ApplyBoard[edit]

Hi DGG, Thanks for your COI tag. Although, I am not a paid contributor, I have COI. I've been editing wiki for a while and I don't think it's my right intent to create the page. I've requested the page for speedy deletion. I'll put a request for the page.

Back to the Roots, Inc.[edit]

Can you share what parts of Draft:Back to the Roots, Inc. you are concerned with as far as being written as an advertisement? I previously cleaned up the draft, removing what I viewed as the most promotional content. Since I didn't see a response on the talk page, my guess is that you were concerned with the recognition section, which I've since removed. The company meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, so the only issue seems to be resolving the tone of the article. Would greatly appreciate your feedback since you are the one who both moved it to draft and then reviewed it after submission. Thank you. Sfern824 (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the promotional elements include information of which store sell the products, the details of how they work, but especially the tabloid-style origin story. But there's also a problem with the references, according to [[WP:NCORP}, we need substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not blogs or postings or mere notices , nor references containing only information about funding or personnel changes. The two Huffington Post stories are by a "contributor", not a staff member of the journal--consensus is clear that these are not reliable, because there is no effective editorial control. The NYT ref about the NYC schools is a good source, but "New Crop of Companies..." and "From Kefir to cucumbers..." are mere mentions in a general article, " and its "A new mushrooom..." is really a notice, The Guardian articles seem also to be general articles,. Business insider is a PR publication, the Sustainable Brands article is mostly PR. The firm is probably notable so a good article is possible with some trimming oft he text and the refs. .
However, there is something much more important:. Since this is your only contribution, , 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 detailed disclosures. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, helpful feedback and will work on making some of those changes. I am a "connected contributor" as I disclosed on the talk page of the article which I followed from WP:Disclose. I'm a member of the Amazon Early Reviewer program, and I did, several years ago, get a free mushroom kit from back to the roots. I have subsequently purchased their mushroom, and at home seedings product (I forget the name, but it grows on the counter, and works pretty well.) Also, I'm a vegetarian and an environmentally concerned citizen, so I believe their products are doing a tiny bit to combat global warming, but we all need to do what we can at home. But I do believe that I'm sufficiently un attached to be able to remove puff from the draft article.Sfern824 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AssetMark[edit]

Hello, DDG. Thank you for reviewing my page. I'm a bit confused as I used well-known and widely read independent sources like Barron's and InvestmentNews. Are whole articles about a public company still considered passing mentions? Also, other companies we share the space with were published with similar sources. I will add more references but would appreciate any additional guidance you can provide. Thank you for your time and efforts. Cbmsr (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cbmsr, The current rule is WP:NCORP, and many articles in Wikipedia were written under earlier more permissive rules; it will be many years until we upgrade or remove all of them. We no longer accept routine news about financing to be substantial coverage, and we no longer accept an interview where the representative of the company says whatever they please to be independent. The Barons article is half a statement of financing and jalf a stement from the company. That is not substantial independent coverage. The Investment News item is entirely an " interview" where the interviewer asks a few leading questions, makes no substantial comments or analysis whatsoever; the ceo says what he pleases about the company at leangth. It's as if he--or his pr agent wrote it. However, the article in The Street is written by their staff, and is a substantial article analyzing the company's finances. The first WSJ article is directory information based on thir annual report; the second is a notice. articles are just brief reports. Twelve years ago, I would have argued that a financial company with 1 billion assets under management was notable. I was still sometimes successfully arguing this factor 8 years ago, but at $2 billion, but such arguments were not always accepted. They are not accepted now; if they were, I would probably set the level at $5 or $10 billion. This firm is at $63 billion, so it would probably have been accepted under the argument of sufficient size . We now pay more attention to the GNG, and the details of sourcing. What it amounts to, is taking more seriously the basic policy that Wikipedia is not a. directory,
But there is another consideration, which is Conflict of Interest. Your only two articles are this, and a now deleted draft earlier this year on a much smaller company in a different field; as an administrator I can see it, and I do not think we would ever have accepted an article on the firm. I see you have declared on your talk page a paid COI with respect to AssetMark. According to our current rules under WP:PAID, which have become much stronger during the last few years, you must specify more than just that. , From that policy you "must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contribution to Wikipedia."
The criterion for my accepting a draft is whether I think the community will accept the article. I am uncertain what hte community will say about this one, because there should be two good sources, not just one. There is only one way to find out. if you will make a full declaration, and find another good source, I will accept the article, and send it for a community discussion at WP:AFD. I will start the discussion by repeating the first paragraph in this answer. I don't make the rule; I guess how the community interprets them, but they decide--and they do not necessarily decide logically or consistently DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Casey_Trees[edit]

I saw you nominated this, but before I could do more research, the discussion was closed. In the meanwhile, I asked off-wiki a person whom I know with significant experience in the NFP world of DC and he wrote to me, that "it is well known and reputable." Bearian (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as a preliminary comment, it has not been the case that "well known" had ever had consensus to accepted as an equivalent of "notable", and I think it is very clear consensus that "reputable" has no relation to notability whatsoever. As you know, I have long argued that we should judge by real work importance, rather than sourcing. but the consensus has been consistently against me for the last 14 years. Even if the 90% of WPedians who disagree with me were to suddenly change their mind, , I think they'd expect something more than "well known".
There is of course the use of AIR, but AIR has normally been used in AfD discussions as a justification for prejudice--either prejudice for including an article for something that is greatly approved of at WP+, or prejudice agains including something which many WPedian dislike. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

intemperate email[edit]

I was concerned (as we are in places that are not the USA) there might have been a problem with your 'draftifying' Mubyrato, today. I must apologise publicly (rather than a following email) that I see your point re PROF - a little hasty considering the editor and context in my eyes, but nevertheless I see your point. So I would rather publicly say that, here in apologetic terms, rather than follow the email that I sent. I do hope you might have the AGF that allows for intemperate Australian/Indonesian editing spaces - my apology for any imputations other than, you could have waited... As for the item above, well known - in Australia we would call that BS... by whom indeed? JarrahTree 07:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

perfectly ok email, presenting a real problem that needs some discussion, which I will write tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 10:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your considered response is very much appreciated, both on and off wikipedia, it is something which I value and really have been heartened by your comments. Thank you. JarrahTree 06:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Benjamin Jordan[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and really appreciate your help with my very first draft article. You recently declined my Draft:Benjamin Jordan, siting that my references were not reliable. I have been using two current Wikipedia articles to structure my creation; Gavin McClurg and Will Gadd. It seems that the links provided in these respective pages are very similar to what I have provided and I was hoping that you could please provide me with a bit more explanation so I may correct the errors and resubmit for review? I am grateful for your help and expertise. LyndsayNicole (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of reviewing a draft is not to pass judgment on an article, but to predict whether the community would keep or delete the article were it in mainspace. Reviewers judge on the basis of their experience in knowing what does in fact get accepted, and the reasons why those not accepted get rejected. The community judges. We only predict, both to keep unsuitable articles out of mainspace, and to help possibly suitable ones get improved enough to become likely to be accepted.
Another experienced reviewer agreed with me, and so did a third experienced editor. The version I saw was [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Benjamin_Jordan&oldid=988080987 this], which I declined for resembling a press release. The 2nd reviewer , looking at the present version, focussed on sources.
Looking at the present article, I see no major press coverage: I think the two sources the third reviewer found acceptable or possibly acceptable are hobbyist or local sources, which usually are not counted as heavily for notability . In addition, WP d being in the Guiness book of records has almost never been accepted here as evidence for notability.
I notice the other articles your mentioned have references in major national publications. one in National Geographic, the other in USA Today DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy decline, and what happened before[edit]

Hi :) You recently declined my speedy request at Light resin transfer moulding, and quite rightly so, because by the time you visited the article the issue (A10) was no longer there. What's happening is that an editor has recently removed large chunks of another article, Composite material, and created new articles from the removed contents (this seems to have been already flagged up before). I thought it was odd to remove content without first seeking consensus on the talk page (or even leaving edit notes to explain), and certainly considering the amount of material removed (over 8K, or ~10% of the article) I would have expected to see a formal split proposal first. So what I did was restore the Composite material article and request speedy on the Light resin transfer moulding one (at that point I hadn't realised the same problem was replicated in the other spun-off articles also), thinking that would solve the problem, but the editor reverted my changes. Rather than go to edit war over this I'm going to leave the matter now, especially as I don't know who's wrong here (could well be me!), just wanted to explain to you the background to this in case you hadn't noticed. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I figured something of the sort--that it was an attempted split. I'm not that happy with it, because it really requires further background, but it doesn't fit all that well into the main article. Ideally, they both need considerable rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Casey_Trees[edit]

I saw you nominated this, but before I could do more research, the discussion was closed. In the meanwhile, I asked off-wiki a person whom I know with significant experience in the NFP world of DC and he wrote to me, that "it is well known and reputable." Bearian (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as a preliminary comment, it has not been the case that "well known" had ever had consensus to accepted as an equivalent of "notable", and I think it is very clear consensus that "reputable" has no relation to notability whatsoever. As you know, I have long argued that we should judge by real work importance, rather than sourcing. but the consensus has been consistently against me for the last 14 years. Even if the 90% of WPedians who disagree with me were to suddenly change their mind, , I think they'd expect something more than "well known".
There is of course the use of IAR, but IAR has normally been used in AfD discussions as a justification for prejudice--either prejudice for including an article for something that is greatly approved of at WP, or prejudice agains including something which many WPedian dislike. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(closed as noconsensus) DG

intemperate email[edit]

I was concerned (as we are in places that are not the USA) there might have been a problem with your 'draftifying' Mubyrato, today. I must apologise publicly (rather than a following email) that I see your point re PROF - a little hasty considering the editor and context in my eyes, but nevertheless I see your point. So I would rather publicly say that, here in apologetic terms, rather than follow the email that I sent. I do hope you might have the AGF that allows for intemperate Australian/Indonesian editing spaces - my apology for any imputations other than, you could have waited... As for the item above, well known - in Australia we would call that BS... by whom indeed? JarrahTree 07:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

perfectly ok email, presenting a real problem that needs some discussion, which I will write tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 10:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your considered response is very much appreciated, both on and off wikipedia, it is something which I value and really have been heartened by your comments. Thank you. JarrahTree 06:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Benjamin Jordan[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and really appreciate your help with my very first draft article. You recently declined my Draft:Benjamin Jordan, siting that my references were not reliable. I have been using two current Wikipedia articles to structure my creation; Gavin McClurg and Will Gadd. It seems that the links provided in these respective pages are very similar to what I have provided and I was hoping that you could please provide me with a bit more explanation so I may correct the errors and resubmit for review? I am grateful for your help and expertise. LyndsayNicole (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of reviewing a draft is not to pass judgment on an article, but to predict whether the community would keep or delete the article were it in mainspace. Reviewers judge on the basis of their experience in knowing what does in fact get accepted, and the reasons why those not accepted get rejected. The community judges. We only predict, both to keep unsuitable articles out of mainspace, and to help possibly suitable ones get improved enough to become likely to be accepted.
Another experienced reviewer agreed with me, and so did a third experienced editor. The version I saw was [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Benjamin_Jordan&oldid=988080987 this], which I declined for resembling a press release. The 2nd reviewer , looking at the present version, focussed on sources.
Looking at the present article, I see no major press coverage: I think the two sources the third reviewer found acceptable or possibly acceptable are hobbyist or local sources, which usually are not counted as heavily for notability . In addition, WP d being in the Guiness book of records has almost never been accepted here as evidence for notability.
I notice the other articles your mentioned have references in major national publications. one in National Geographic, the other in USA Today DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on ...[edit]

... When two people get into an angry dispute like the one I have just removed from my talk p., there's no point in trying to apportion the blame, or accusing each other of harassment. This is one of the difficulties of the way arb com and AE and ANI work--they try to find the most party who has behaved the worst, and sanction them. That's not the way I work. I try to prevent personal disputes from occurring, or at least from continuing, or at the very least, escalating. The place to discuss notability is the afd. The place for the rest of this is nowhere. I can't affect the world outside WP, but I can try to prevent this from happening on-wiki, or , at the very least, on this page. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that this dispute has inflamed passions all around and that the situation is far more complicated and emotional that at first glance when I first saw the article in question. After reflecting upon my options, I see no point in pursuing this further—I apologise for my tactlessness. I have withdrawn the AfD and I sincerely apologise to anyone I have offended, .... I also apologise to everyone involved for striking up a nuisance on Wikipedia. I will try to be more tactful and empathetic in the future. Again, very sorry for bothering you all. - 22:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Art of Hosting[edit]

Hi DGG

First, thanks for reviewing the Draft:Art of Hosting article.

I'm particularly curious as to why you consider it an advertisement for the web site, and what would make it appear differently to you and other Wikipedians. In drafting this article I was taking the web site simply as a source of information about the practices involved in the Art of Hosting. In my view, the article would be only slightly less valuable without the link to that site, so would it help if that was removed? I could of course reclaim the information that is pointed to in the site without referring to the site itself.

Thanks Simon Grant (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I can see how it could be interpreted thus, if only because some Art of Hosting practitioners advertise their courses through the site. With that in mind, I have removed the reference to the site itself. What more needs to be done to qualify this as a good-enough article? Thanks -- Simon Grant (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an "approach", or a "community"? The problem is indicated by your phrase "some Art of Hosting practitioners". The word "practitioner" normally indicates formal certification of some sort. The normal meaning of a someone who practices the art of hosting is a good host in the common sense, not the in-organization sense of a member of the organization. If the organization doesn't actually exist as a formal organization, what is there to prevent anyone from calling themselves an Art of Hosting practitioner? The only relevant reference given is 12, and it does not have a link. In the section on application, it says "this approach is used in ...". Does this mean this approach, in the generic sense of the sort of techniques that might constitute an approach, or people who subscribe to the particular tenets? Similarly, for every phrase in capital letters: The capitals mean something defined.
It's not clear who founded this, or if there is a single publication on which it is based.
What can clarify this is the references, but they need to indicate 1/if online, who publishes them (use the "website" parameter in cite web and if relevant also the "publisher" parameter , and to give a link. 2/if a book, the page number, and if the reference is going to establish anything specific, a quotation of a key phrase or sentence. I see what looks lie a good reference at 25, but this is an unpublished work placed on a university website.
The alternative is to present this as not A/ the people who use The Art of Hosting technique, but B/ the people who say they use a technique that they call "The Art of Hosting." .

For comparison, this is a similar problem to the discussion a little below here on this page about the draft on the Callan Method, except they are a clearly commercial organization. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, if I have not asked you before: are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. The manner of writing seems to indicate that. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Edwards[edit]

I'm not sure this artist is notable. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Berian, they're not notable --no museum collections, no major critical coverage, most of the refs are PR or not independent . One quotation is from a blog, the other from a promotional interview. I've been bringing too many afds. Your turn. ' DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frontenac House[edit]

I saw this was tagged as NN. I reached out to people in academia, and they hadn't heard if it. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's a specialized poetry publisher, not an academic publisher.. I'm checking further. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Brian K. Smith[edit]

I saw this academic of unclear notability. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Complicated situation--see page history. I seem to have misunderstood the situation earlier. I think this could probably be removed as G7 except for the recent ip edits. Advice?
  • I would send it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added citations. They are reasonably good for the subject. Associate Professor at MIT Media Lab is also significant. I am not going to AfD, but its borderline, and in its original form, was undoubtedly written as PR for his latest appointment. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Callan Method[edit]

Hi DGG I made the changes to Callan Method as suggested but have heard nothing more. In the meantime there are more pages appearing on Callan Method in Wikipedia in different languages. It would be good to have an English version as Callan Method is about teaching English and Callan himself was from England. I would be grateful for your help. Robert Hercules (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the Callan method is a method of teaching English and Spanish " or "the Callan Method is a method of teaching English and Spanish, implemented by the Callan Method Organisation" or ""the Callan method is a method of teaching English and Spanish especially a version implemented by the Callan Method Organisation". Anyone can follow what they think to be the method, but they can't use their textbooks & teaching materials unless certified by the CMO. Is the C M a registered trademark. ? I assume it is not, because otherwise they would say it is.
The problem here is the implication in the article that nobody else may use their methods and call it Callan Method. For example "Callan Method, for learners of English, is divided into Stages 1-12; " If somebody teaches it but uses their own teaching material what's the status?. If somebody teaches it but uses their own teaching material and divides that teaching material in another way, what's the status?I interpret the current wording as an unwarrented claim of intellectual property without evidence of it. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Hercules, If there are no further discussions, I will revise the article to minimize the proprietary use, as is normal practice with any article DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I have made contact with Callan Method Organisation with regard to trademarks and await confirmation. Meantime if the page could be published in a revised form this would be appreciated. I can confirm that Callan Method is a unique series of books which are integral to its teaching. A Callan Method teacher, even with 30 years experience, requires the Callan Method Teachers book at all times in order to deliver a class. This person is trained in the use of Callan Method books. Callan Method students require Callan Method books to follow the courses. The key point is that Callan Method can never be taught or learnt without Callan Method books, there is no question that anyone could attempt to teach Callan Method using different materials. Callan Method IS the material and special training is required to learn how to apply it. This material is protected by copyright. Sorry if this seems a little repetitive, I just felt it was important to make this clear. Robert Hercules (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC),[reply]

Robert Hercules, what you say amounts to the opinion of the Organization, its own advertising for itself. Have you a source for all that, independent of the organisation? If you do not, it will have to say something like, "the Organization claims that...." If that's how you write the article, it will need to be titled Callen Method Organisation. I point out to you that having copyrighted a book does not give anyone exclusive rightts to do what is in the book. The article says their books are now controlled distribution, which is what people do when they hope to maintain a monopoly. But if anyone can get hold of the material, they can use it. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG... I suggest we remove the final two paragraphs of the original draft and replace them with three short paragraphs as follows. This hopefully takes out all areas that could be contentious or misleading


International spread


From 1970, new language schools opened around the world to teach with Callan Method. It was initially widespread in Brazil, Italy and Poland – school owners were often former students at Callan School in London – but now hundreds of schools in the UK, Europe, South America and Asia use it.

In 2020 the first Callan Method school in USA opened in Atlanta, Georgia to teach English and Spanish

Publications

In addition to the core English course (12 books) Callan Method is available to teach Callan for Kids (6 books), Callan Español (6 books) and Callan for Business (1 book). Callan Student Grammar Workbooks, levels A1 to B2, are used in preparation for recognised international examinations including Cambridge, TOEFL, IELTS.

The Callan Student Practice Area was introduced in 2014 as an online platform for students to practice language skills in English and Spanish. In 2020 the Online Callan Classroom was developed to provide an online teaching environment tailored to Callan Method classes.


Ownership

Robin Callan, the author of the Callan Method, died in 2014.

The copyright to the Callan Method books and other teaching materials and the international trademarks are now owned by Callan Works Limited. The books and teaching materials are published by Callan Method Organisation Limited, under licence from Callan Works Limited. Callan Method Organisation also provides teacher training and school accreditation services. Both companies are part of Callan Method Group Limited.

The Callan Method trademark is registered in over 100 countries. The trademark number in UK is 2009317.Robert Hercules (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hercules, this will work better if the title is changed to "Callan Method Group" and the first sentence includes somewhere the word "proprietary". Shall lI move the draf to that title? And remind me, did you declare COI? DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets do that. I am not an employee, I am former Callan Method student. Thanks Robert Hercules (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, the above changes have now been made, please could you review and add the word proprietary as you feel appropriate, thanks for your help. Robert Hercules (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review on Draft[edit]

Dear DGG,

you have declined my Draft for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fabian_Kiessling for being a rough translation from the German Wikipedia page. I have changed the style and it should now be neutral, informative and the way an article should be in WP. Would be highly appreciated if you could take a look again and hopefully the article is now properly designed for WP. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.15.1 (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some further adjustment was needed.It was easier to do it than explain, so I did it for you, and accepted the article. DGG ( talk ) 10:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maweile (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Draft talk:Jerry B. Brown § DGG Editor Comments[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:Jerry B. Brown § DGG Editor Comments. Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Would you mind taking a look at this since it appears to directed towards you and some comments you left about the draft? To be honest, I'm not totally sure this SPA isn't just another account connected to the subject in some why like the one asked about this at the Teahouse a few weeks back or like Lauren at World Business Academy who created the draft, but I'm willing to wait and see before a bit more before trying to connect those dots . Anyway, I did some minor cleaning up around that time of the Teahouse question, but this new SPA basically re-intorduced the same errors with their recent attempts to improve the draft. Perhaps you could look it over again and see if the new account has addressed your concerns? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have acepted it and dealt with remaining problems. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Richard J. Blackwell[edit]

Hi DGG -- Noticed this draft going through an editor's draftify list; I think he's probably notable enough and sourced enough to publish? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the only reason I have not done so is that it would be much stronger article if it included his publications, and I hadn't gotten to that yet. Since you did, I've approved it, adding what you said in your edit summary , because that's very relevant to notability under WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

election[edit]

see User:DGG/ACE2020 , a little on the late side. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Real Life Barnstar
You are not only good administrator but also good user-friendly member of Wikipedia. I appreciate your sentiments. 🇮🇳DRCNSINDIA (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Bassler[edit]

I've been watching Draft:Robert_C._Bassler since I responded to the author on the AFC help page. The author has gone through and made *major* cuts, perhaps *too* much, IMO. Given the current state of the article, I think that moving it back to mainspace is appropriate, or maybe just going through and making more exact suggestions.Naraht (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thee are some fixes needed; I think as it stands it would not pass afd, but if fixed, it might. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected drafts[edit]

Hi, DGG,

I have had little involvement with AFC over the years but I am taking care of hundreds of stale drafts these days. Plenty of them have been rejected by AfC reviewers but, to my untrained eyes, even though they don't have 4 or 5 reliable sources, they would definitely make decent stub articles. I'm just wondering if AfC reviewers have high standards, looking for every claim to have verification, and declining articles that, are not in great shape now but if given time & attention, might make decent articles in the future. Or are reviewers discouraged from accepting submissions that would just be stubs? Just wondering. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The basic standard is that the draft will be likely to pass AfD, but as usual at Wikipedia, every reviewer uses their own interpretation. The key word is "likely". Remembering the discussions from 4 or 5 years ago, it was established that it does not mean 51%, but also not 99%. Most reviewers say they interpret it at between 60 and 80 %, but in practice the actual range in 80 to 90%. However, most reviewers probably think more globally than numerically. There will always be disagreement about what ought to pas AfD, and many us tend to judge by what we think ought to pass, more than what we think will in the current state of things pass.
I do not try to judge what the community will do at afd for drafts not in my fields of interest, for I do not review them. In practice very few of my approved drafts have ever been rejected, but that's because if they're borderline I will if necessary fix them myself. A relatively small number of other people also do that.
There is considerable pressure to keep the level high--nobody wants to be called out for passing something that the community rejects, nobody wants to have a long discussion getting an article improved and then seeing it rejected, and there's even a warning message at various places about listing for deletion or changing the status to unpatrolled for something that passed AfC--whereas reviewers rarely get blamed for declining a draft.
For the 6 month old drafts now appearing for G13, some of them are my notably over-demanding reviewers. For the ones that are declined for clearly incorrect reasons, I will say so in a comment, which postpones them. An article does not need 3 or 4 reliable sources showing notability to pass; one is enough if it's good enough, like being in a standard encyclopedia. But I will often decline them and ask for more, in order to increase the chance that it will actually pass. I take into consideration whether further sources are likely. I also at least nowadays, carem ore about promotionalism than notability. I will not pass a basically promotional article regardless of notability -- although if it is extremely notable, i will once in a while remove the worst of the promotionalism and pass it.
What concerns me even more than the mis-reviewed drafts are the ones that are good enough, or almost good enough, but never got submitted. If I think they might be good enough, I will always at least fix them a little and postpoen them, or even just submit and accept them.
My advice is to follow your instincts about what belongs in Wikipedia. I tend to check deleted G13s a little as well as ones not yet at 6 months. I do not check something if its obvious from the title that its hopeless or not in my field. I see many that you've deleted, and I restore about 1/10 of them, I consider 90% agreement between two reviewers as good as can be expected.
There are not merely 2 classes of articles at AfC--the passes and the fails. There are 3: the hopeless, the improvable, and the adequate. I'd say the proportion as they arrive in draft is 40-50-10. As formally submitted, it's 20-60-20. Dealing with the ones in the middle takes more work than the available people can do. That's the basic problem. It's mot the fault of draft and afc, before we had it, there was the same proportion at New Page Patrol. We tended to accept everything that was possible, about 50%, which is how the early junk got into WP, and, if not of great interest to people, never got improved. Unsatisfactory as it is, the current way is better. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 30[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Stryker (neuroscientist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Feldheim.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heungbu and Nolbu[edit]

I see that you already performed the merge into Heungbu and Nolbu.

Could you remove the {{merge}} tag if the associated talk is finished or elapsed? Thx.--Kiyoweap (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reminding me. Done. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_166_Nov._2020&oldid=1045702241"