User talk:DGG/Archive 169 Feb. 2021

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


Administrators' newsletter – February 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

  • The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Onses[edit]

I think this person is not notable as either as politician or an academic. Your thoughts? Bearian (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iagree, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Onses. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Organizational orientations[edit]

For you or your other academic/library TPSers, anyone have an interest in adopting this article? The topic is notable, but it has been tagged forever, likely because no one knows where to even begin to transform it. Thanks either way. StarM 15:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did the first step, by moving it to Organizational orientations theory, I think the next step would be to condense, which I could probably do. But, judging from the use of the term in Google Scholar, it's not necessarily notable [1]. The researcher who devised it, however, certainly is, based on their other work in the general area [2]. My current inclination is to turn it into an article on McCroskey, mentioning the theory as part of their work. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I definitely see some good sourcing on McCroskey. I think the sourcing I'd seen on the theory were likely not ones that would meet academic guidelines anyway. StarM 15:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endeavor Business Media[edit]

Hi DGG, I'm still trying to learn how to communicate on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure I'm supposed to respond to our conversation on your talk page or mine -- I appreciate your patience! I did want to follow up on my request to see if you would be able to restore the draft I started for my company, Endeavor Business Media, as I am attempting to create a Wikipedia page. I declared a conflict of interest on my user page, so I'm ready to get started. Here is the rest of our conversation on the topic, copied from my talk page (apologies if this duplicates work):

The first step is to declare the conflict of interest on your user page, which is User: Abigail Christine. You say you work for the company, ans if your job is to write PR for them or anything similar, say so. The second step is to write a factual acrticle in draft space. On that article's talk page, say again that you havea conflict of interest.

I assume you have a copy of what you posted. If not, let me know here. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks DGG - I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. I will follow those steps. Would it be possible to restore my previous draft, so I can work from there? I have a draft on my computer but I made some changes along the way. Thank you for your help! Abigail Christine (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Abigail Christine (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can send you the draft, if you activate your email, which you can do from the User profile page of your user preferences. See Help:Preferences DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 20[edit]

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (January 2021).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 20th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Miscellaneous

  • For people interested in creating user scripts or gadgets using TypeScript, a types-mediawiki package (GitHub, NPM) is now available that provides type definitions for the MediaWiki JS interface and the API.
  • A GitHub organization has been created for hosting codebases of gadgets. Users who maintain gadgets using GitHub may choose to move their repos to this organization, to ensure continued maintenance by others even if the original maintainer becomes inactive.

Pending requests Pending requests

As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, including nominating a featured script, help is appreciated. Stay safe, and happy new year! --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please see[edit]

If possible please take a look here. I requested it yesterday but did not got response from any admin. request on wrong place? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is not one of the things I usually work on. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaija II and the AFC script[edit]

I noticed this in main space with afc aretacts, yet you accepted it using the sript. My memory suggests this has happened to you before, but I cannot recall the circumstances. There's nothing wrong. I just felt you might wish to examine the history and consider what, if anything, to report about the script Fiddle Faddle 16:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes work too fast for it=it sometimes works too slow for me. The response time of the script varies, and I don't know why; but my impatience also varies so its had to separate out the factors. But the script isn't anywhere as bad as in previous years--at the beginning, I did it manually instead because manually was easier and faster. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the days of manual acceptance. The script was a lovely surprise when it arrived Fiddle Faddle 08:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Waismann[edit]

Hello, DGG! Thanks for reviewing the page I created! The page had been under many discussions and consensus had been reached with 3 other reviwers (scope_creep, chicdat and Timtrent) regarding its contents and tone. They believed the text was neutral after a series of edits and that was the reason for me to re-submit it. However, I'd be glad to work on its tone of neutrality if you can detail. The text mostly cites the facts that happened without any emotional characteristics added, so I'd be glad to hear from you what triggered your attention as "advertorial content". We can discuss it on the Talk Page of the article and I'd like to invite all the editors who contributed for a more constructive discussion. אור פ (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

אור פ, I am simply an editor, as is DGG. Their opinion and mine differ from time to time. That is as it should be. My job in this case was to accept it since I believe it has a better that 60% chance if surviving an immediate deletion process. Now it is an article it is subject to the same rigour that all other articles are (eventually) subject to.
My usual advice to any editor who creates an article is to be its father not its mother. If you can improve it to meet a critique then do so, but if you cannot see an issue then ignore the article and let others take over the work. When we create an article we often stand too close to see its faults. And every article, even one stated to be a good article has faults. Fiddle Faddle 08:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{u|אור פ}}, I agree with Fiddle that the article would probably pass AfD, at least if revised. And I agree with them also about the advisability of not becoming over-committed to the particular text of an article--I follow that advice myself. A key thing you could do to strengthen the article is to make sure his most referenced publications are listed, and give the no. of citations from Google scholar or equivalent, Then, remove minor work, such as conference talks--including them is part of what makes the tone sound like a personal web page or CV rather than an encyclopedia article. And make sure there is are references to support his method of treatment that will meet the ]WP:MEDRS criteria. (another excellent editor has just removed so newspaper articles that very decidedly are not reliable sources in the subject).The reader needs to know from 3rd party reliable sources the degree to which his methods are generally accepted in scientific medicine, DGG ( talk ) 12:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DGG! I believe I contributed enough to the article about Dr. Waismann and I don’t want to be deemed «over-committed». Therefore, I prefer to abstain from editing the article and contribute to other projects. אור פ (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will if I have time do some checking on this myself, . DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ako Akhalaia[edit]

Hello Dear @DGG:, I am writing as the author of an article - Draft:Ako Akhalaia. I, myself, am One of the contributors and editors of Georgian Wikipedia. It’s been a while since my submitted article is in the drafts section. You say that person - Ako Akhalaia does not meet the recognition criteria, and the article needs additional resources. Fifteen certified links accompany the article. Here are the leading media agencies of Georgia, the Public Broadcaster, etc. He is Also the official Representative of the Cannes Lions Festival in Georgia + Publisher of Harvard Business Review. This person is the founder of the most popular Marketing magazine in Georgia. His awareness in this area is very high. You can quickly check and verify this. We want to make sure that he can be found in the English Wikipedia as well, so if you do not mind, please, review the article again and help us as colleagues publish the article. I really appreciate any help you can provide.--გიორგი ჩუბინიძე (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each encyclopedia has its own standards. Our current standards for this sort of a career ar e gradually becoming increasing stringent. All that AfC is supposed to do if to say whether or not a draft is likely to be kept as an article. In its current state, based on my considerable experienmce at AfD, it is not likely to be kept. The question of whether I personally feel it should or should not be kept is irrelevant..
The problem with the article is the nature of the sources. The references that are in English are either just notes that he is a member of something, or his own basic bio, or an interview in which he says whatever he wants to, or him speaking about himself at a forum. For the Georgian ones, tho I did not attempt to translate them, they seem similar, especially with respect to what he says ata forum or interview. We no longer consider such interviews or talks as independent references.
Possibly the Georgian WP jiudges notability by whether someone is intrinsically important. The enWP probably should do that, but it does not. It judges only by whether there are multiple substantial independent sources.. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Biro[edit]

Hi DGG. Thanks for moving David Biro to draft. I took a pass or two at it, and I think it looks more like a Wikipedia article now. At least the reviews support notability, and it's not completely primary sourced. Would you take another look at Draft:David Biro and see if you think it looks mainspace-ready now? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, ok, so I didn't hear anything back from you over a few days. I suspect that you missed my comment in the excitement below it on your talk page. I've moved the David Biro page back to mainspace: I judge it to be in reasonable shape, and the NAUTHOR case looks solid. If you still have serious concerns, I don't object to moving back to draft. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Russ Woodroofe: It acceptable. Add more book reviews as available. Kirkus and PW are the weakest place for reviews. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE comment[edit]

Hi, David. I've just read your treatise in full (long but worth it!) and I wanted to thank you for pretty much providing the best piece of insight in that entire sorry ordeal. Thank you for making me think deep. Best, El_C 16:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, but it's wrong. DGG wrote: "The fundamental fault is that of arb com" for having passed the sourcing remedy. But the sourcing remedy was the one good thing to have come out of that case. Look at the sourcing in The Holocaust in Poland in January 2018. Citations not written clearly. Some good scholarly sources, but also museum websites, Basic Books, Stackpole Books, Jewish Virtual Library, Aish.com, American Jewish Committee, jewishgen.org, thoughtco.com, h-net.org, internationalresearchcenter.org, polacyizydzi.com, and so on. And really, this was one of the better articles in the area. SarahSV (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, yes, I agree with you that the sourcing requirement is indeed paramount, for all the wikivoice stuff. I think that David was making perhaps a more nuanced point (unless I misread) about also expressing the popular views of both sides, as opposed to just the straight-up social scientific end of things (which is the alpha and omega, of course). And, also, what about the so-called peer review works coming out of Poland? The whitewashing that has been furiously pushed by successive Polish governments on their academia is clearly grossly out-of-step with scholarly standards — what do we do with those? Just can't really trust anything coming from Poland these days on the APL front, obviously. Maybe I missed it, but did WP:APL even address that critical problem? As always, I bow in deference to your superior knowledge about Holocaust historiography, overall. El_C 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The popular views are all over the place. Wikipedians aren't Holocaust historians; we can't use all the sources historians would use. There is a vast, English-language, mainstream Holocaust scholarship, and there's no reason not to base our articles on it ("English-language" includes translated works). The historians deal with the whitewashing. It may mean that we're a bit behind, but it's like MEDRS; we wait for review articles, rather than using clinical trials. The biggest problem is that people don't want to do the reading. It's much easier to grab something from a website. SarahSV (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, no "preprints" at APL, either, please. Imagine if we could get someone like a Yehuda Bauer to contribute even 30 minutes a week. How things would look. What, I can dream! El_C 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is something the WMF might pay for: a fund to pay subject-matter experts to review certain articles. Someone would have to apply for a grant and so on. I don't have the energy, but I think it's a great idea. There was a plan to do it for FACs a few years ago, but I can't remember what came of it. Some academics will review without payment if you ask them. SarahSV (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a proposal long ago by arb com to do something of the sort. The community rejected it furiously. The idea behind WP is that it's an amateur, non-authoritative work. I think that's worth holding on to. There's a need for expert encyclopedias also; I like the idea myself, , and was one of the original subject editors of Citizendium--it didn't work, and one of the reasons was bitter disagreement about the quality of the experts. When some medical editors ore recently wanted to do that, they formed a separate but affiliated organization. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But, Sarah, the reason for using English language sources is accessibility to readers on the enWP, not intellectual superiority. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about "intellectual superiority" (not even sure what you mean by that). DGG and El C, the problem is that none of the dedicated articles we host related to the Holocaust in Poland (that I have seen) reflect the scholarship. Today I was reading about Zegota, a Polish group set up to help Jews (lots of problems, antisemitism, poorly supported, underfunded, and so on), then I go to the Wikipedia article and the problems are missing or only slightly alluded to. We could use the ArbCom sourcing requirements to change the article, but it would be a battle and it's just not worth it. SarahSV (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know what Wikipedia article on Zegota you read, but the one on en wiki has an entire section entitled “Financial difficulties” based on works of prominent Holocaust scholars (Polonsky, Winstone, Kermish etc) That’s a bit more than “slightly alluded”. Volunteer Marek 03:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) David, because this is such a key subject, I think what she's saying is that much of the preeminent scholarship has already been translated to English. I always prefer reading anything in Hebrew over English (just because I find it easier), but, for example, I've probably read twice more Yehuda Bauer works in English than in Hebrew. By virtue of, as you say, their accessibility alone. [After edit conflict:] Sarah, there's few subjects where truly representing WP:V is more worthy of a struggle, I would challenge! El_C 01:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subjects that are a challenge to NPOV are those where we are convinced rationally we are correct, and feel emotionally very sure that our being correct is important. The treatment of the Jews in postwar Poland is one of them, as a sign of our rejection of bigotry. The two most critical others here in the past year or so have been climate change and American politics. In all these I agree with the great majority of people here: I am positive we are right, and I find it extremely difficult to imagine how anyone of good will could possibly think otherwise. In all these I (and we) very much want our view to prevail, and we want people who read WP to agree. I've said, and I think we agree, that a key purpose of WP is to represent information that can be used for practical action to support the side which must prevail. The only fair and effective way to do this is to present what each side had to say, even the most evil or most idiotic, and to give readers the opportunity to judge for themselves. It is wrong to pretend the opponents do not exist, or to label their views in such a way that readers will reject them without listening.
The proof of that is to observe who characteristically and necessarily argues to suppress or label their opponents: Nazis and Stalinists and fascists and supporters of dictatorial regimes more generally, racial or religious or nationalist bigots, or people or firms or nations obtaining advantage from the adoption of their views. They all cannot risk anyone saying otherwise and actually finding the truth. For us, whom I assume are none of these things, to adopt their methods is to tacitly admit that we might possibly lose the argument if we give others a fair hearing. As I said long ago on my talk page, I follow J.S. Mill in this: the answer to bad argument is good argument. Anywhere I read only one side, or where one side is labelled from the start as being wrong, I know that people are trying to manipulate me.
This is especially true for an encyclopedia. To the extent we are trusted, it will not be because we are right, but because we are honest. The only way to show we are honest to to present the facts and arguments that go against us as carefully as the ones we think correct. The reader will judge. Any compromise with this is a sign that we distrust the reader's intelligence and judgment so much that we are afraid to disclose that there are those who disagree. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel or think any of the things you've described. What I want to do is summarize current, mainstream Holocaust historiography, whatever it says. SarahSV (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
exactly. You want to summarize only the mainstream. And it's curious that what we personally believe is always the mainstream. DGG ( talk )
and the page is closed for the night. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
just for the night. It was 1:30 AM here, and my concentration was reaching a limit. Can be continued. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this. I'm 100% behind everything Sarah wrote, and want to add yet again that the core problems here are structural, and WP:APLRS was just a half-thought attempt at a solution (thanks for the shortcut, by the way). We can improve the situation in a number of ways that do not change the basic characteristics of Wikipedia, for example by employing expert advisory boards and dedicated TA admins.
The only fair and effective way to do this is to present what each side had to say, even the most evil or most idiotic Everyone along the chain have to make determinations regarding the validity of an idea: the sources, us, and the readers. You're assuming that we can't overcome our disagreements to accurately reflect sources' determination; but if we can't, what gives you the certainty that the reader can? And at any rate, that's not what encyclopedias are for - they are for the gist; the full argument can be had elsewhere. We curate; the only question is how.
The proof of that is to observe who characteristically and necessarily argues to suppress or label their opponents That is affirming the consequent. One could accurately characterize so-and-so as a "structuralist", "post modernist" or "nationalist" without any ill or political intent.
Regarding Żegota - whatever little is there is only there because either I or Icewhiz insisted that it be included. The archives of Talk:Żegota would tell you a lot about who supported what in this argument, as well as who labeled who as what. François Robere (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robere, Yes, you have pointed out one of the ambiguities of NPOV. When we say that we do not tell the reader what to think we realy mean that we do not tell the reader explicitly. No matter how neutral we may be in presenting the facts, to a certain degree we cannot help expressing our view of the facts. No matter how carefully we select references to express all views, we select them as humans with our human biases. There are professions which teach people how to minimize it, such as my librarianship (or Atsme's journalism). I can certainly teach people how to minimize bias. I cannot teach them how to eliminate it. The best that can be done is to become aware of one's biases, and aware that they are indeed biases--this is usually called cultural relativism or implicit bias.
The basic principle behind the possibility of a NPOV encyclopedia is not that we as individual writers can avoid bias; it's that on all important questions we will attract contributors with a range of backgrounds and assumptions, but this depends on our welcoming those who have nonconventional background, and not chasing them away, which we now do all too often. It is certainly easier to write an article cooperatively when everyone there agrees on how it should be written, but it is much harder to write a NPOV article/. Thus I am dismayed by the current tendency to call the expression of minority views disruptive editing. The back and forth of ideas, and the recognition of the possibility. that one might not be altogether in the right, can indeed be disruptive, but what it disrupts is prejudices. And the encouragement of the participation of people with views that most of us here disagree with, facilitates the best technique for learning about one's biases--open discussion with people who hold different biases.

There's another technique-- the deliberate exercise of writing for the enemy--if for example I want to show that the previous president of the US meant well in all his actions, how would I go about it? A background helpful for this is competitive debate--one must understand one's opponents argument in order to refute it. (And, come to think of it, lawyers too must acquire this skill.)

The role of an encyclopedia is to provide basic information that is as free from this as possible--to show people what the arguments and positions and agreed and disputed facts are, so they can think about it, and if they wish follow up the details later. This requires that we make every possible effort to give the full range of opinions. It means we must constantly keep it in mind, because everyone's inherent tendency is to not even listen to one's opponent's argument. I get my news from the NYT, and my opinions about US politics tend to be based on the Washington Post, but if I want to see what's going on, it's helpful to look at what Fox thinks is going on. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've gleaned from this discussion, the issue isn't about using quality sources; rather, it is about who will be grading the sources as quality or subpar? My position about WP:RSP grading entire sources is no secret; I have issues with it. NPOV is a core content policy that cannot be superseded by consensus, so when I see activity that is noncompliant with policy and based more on POV, I'm going to contribute my POV. Keep in mind that academics are also expressing their POV based on the material they've read and had access to, and there will be differences in how historians view the past. I'm not judging which POV is right or wrong - that isn't our job. Our job is laid out very clearly in NPOV. We have to consider WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:WEIGHT, but again, who is making these determinations? It would be different if we were talking about computational science, or medicine but we're talking about atrocities and the horrifics of politics during an era in human history that most find to be beyond belief. It's a topic area that is highly volatile and often interspersed with sprinklings of emotion - how could it not be? Our admins and arbcom are not supposed to get involved in content issues, not even obliquely - it is not within their purview to judge the quality of sources (not to mention area of expertise), and that includes admins at AE. There must be another way to get these highly controversial articles right with the least amount of disruption while still being able to present opposing views per NPOV. And remember WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Several years ago, I proposed WP:Project Accuray which incorporated an Editorial Review Committee, but the end result was that WMF turned it down. I still believe it would have worked perfectly, especially in situations like this. Atsme 💬 📧 18:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly Review this Page, Dr. GSK Velu[edit]

Hello Mr David Goodman, I have newly joined WIKIPEDIA and still exploring all the norms of it. I intend to add a person's information to WIKIpedia page based on his notability. I am professionally attached to this person. As I am new to this, Please help in reviewing the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._GSK_Velu Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satapathysobhana (talk • contribs) 08:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Satapathysobhana, before you attempt to write about people with whom there is a conflict of interest, learn how to work here by working on topics of personal interest to you where this is not the case--and when you do so, it's better to add to existing articles before you start new ones--that's the way to learn. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Good morning. Requested changes from NowMedical[edit]

Hi DGG. I was hoping you might be willing to take a look here and provide any feedback. Thank you. MarthaLuke (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started commenting; if nobody else does, I'll make what changes I think best in a few days. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Improved Draft[edit]

Hi, David. I looked at your comment on Draft: Sydney Talker and I've fixed the areas you spotted. It is now improved and I'm super-glad I've learned something new. You can have a look now and let me know if there are areas that require changes or fixes. Thanks in advance! Mondayudowong (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see the draft DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ck

Draft:Sri Surasaraswathi Sabha[edit]

Sir, I have made the necessary corrections to the subject. Kindly find some time to review. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall get there tomorrow or this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Prateek Sharma (Gastroenterologist)[edit]

I have made the changes and additions as requested. Please review at your earliest convenience. Gastr850oath (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall get there tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Lempert[edit]

Philly jawn, it had been appropriately deleted, for it was a promotional CV. Since he might be notable as an author I restoredit to draft, qwhilw lso removing the worst of the promotionalism -- see my comment on Draft:David Lempert. If by any chance you have any connection with the previous editors or the subkect, please disclose it on the draft talk p. When ready, resubmit, but I will let some other reviewer decide whether to accept it. Please do not move it to mainspace yourself. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Ravi IPS Page deletion[edit]

Some have been bent on getting Mr. Ravi IPS's page deleted. they have belittled all his achievements. they also mentioned the award seems to be awarded at least in part merely for long routine service. Then why do we have a wikipedia page for the award alone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Police_Medal - This award page that we are talking about interestingly has Mr. Ravi's name mentioned under the state of Tamilnadu.

Citations - Articles and news have mentioned him as the ADGP and not Ravi.

Please let me know if this page can be restored, I can have it rephrased or if given enough time, I am sure many more people will contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Abraham.A (talk • contribs) 10:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I previously argued for deletion, and that is still my opinion. Have you any conflict of interest? I ask because you have worked on only this article. It might be possible for someone else to write a satisfactory article, but your progressive attempts have only added yet more routine material. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft feedback[edit]

Hi, David. I made a draft at Draft:Dremo a couple weeks back. Do you mind taking a look at it? Some feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance, man! Mondayudowong (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not at all my subject field, DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia mirror Wikitia[edit]

Hey DGG,

First, I would like to thank you for all of the work that you do on Wikipedia. Second, I was looking through some AFC drafts and found a couple comments of yours that were concerning. On the pages Draft:Julia Ivanova (filmmaker) and Draft:Daniel Primetzhofer you state that the drafts have been copied from the site Wikitia. However, that is incorrect. Wikitia is a mirror site that copies pages from Wikipedia (such as Articles for creation submissions) and then charges people to edit them. You can read more about it at User:Gobonobo/Wikitia, User:SamHolt6/SEO wiki mirrors, and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/VWXYZ. MarkZusab (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. thanks for alerting me about this--I shall have to check the drafts. If what is copied is changed material from there, then using it here is a copyvio. Otherwise it raises questions about coi editing, but I also gather that sometimes they reprint articles without a request from the author. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Lawton[edit]

You nominated the page for deletion in 2016, and I've taken to re-writing it. The article was largely unchanged from its creation in 2010 and it really read like a bloody ad. He's covered extensively in print newspaper sources which I've clipped and collected. Any help expanding or writing the page is welcome. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs work. I moved it to Draft space as Draft:Larry Lawton. . After you fix it, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It still cites his own book which is a big no-no and will have to be fixed. I haven't touched most of the newspaper articles and I'm really looking for more newspaper reporting that covers the actual investigation and arrest. I've found Philly and Florida papers covering that. A lot of them refer to him as "Lawrence R. Lawton" or "Lawrence Robert Lawton" which makes finding sources a bit harder to find. For sources about him, they mostly end at 2013, with the last in 2017. His Reality Check program got a lot of attention in 2013. Most of his media appearances after that is mostly just him commenting on some heist and not really talking about him so it's not that useful for a Wikipedia article. He also has a business advising companies how to avoid being robbed, but I haven't seen any newspapers cover any of that. And funny enough, despite having a Youtube channel with 1 million subs I haven't seen any reliable sources actually discuss that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't able to improve it, it will be routinely deleted in 6 months. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Just that it's gonna look a tad bit odd, because he has 1 million subs on youtube, but no reliable sources have talked about his Youtube career. But most people are likely to check his page due to seeing one of his videos. The robberies, the reality check program, the mentoring program, and book, seem to be what has been reported. Likely another media appearance will mention it one day. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:National Invasive Species Council[edit]

Information icon Hello, DGG. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:National Invasive Species Council, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_169_Feb._2021&oldid=1008212874"