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

Hi there. I noticed that you PROD on Wayra as being a non-notable business incubator, which expired on June 24th 2013. I would like to discuss this with you. Wayra is now the world's biggest technology incubator, and has academies in 14 countries. I am the CEO of a current member company. There are many press articles about Wayra in both Europe and Latin America. In the UK alone 28 companies either have been or are going through the incubator currently.

Wayra has also now partnered with UnLtd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnLtd to create a joint social-business incubator called Wayra UnLtd. Again, there is much press coverage and independent coverage from non-profit organisations about this new incubator that establishes notability to some degree.

Wayra was opened by Boris Johnson, is run by Telefonica, has had guests such as HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and numerous politicians, leading investors, etc visit it or mentor at it.

Are you willing to consider allowing me to contribute a neutral, informational piece on Wayra that establishes notability? In many ways it is more notable than Techstars for its breadth and reach, yet Techstars seems to have little problem securing a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techstars

Thanks! JonathanMayUK ( talk) 16:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply

It was only deleted by the WP:PROD deletion mechanism, and since anyone could have stopped the deletion while the prod was running, our practice is that it will be restored for any good faith editor who wants to work on it. I will restore it to your user space as User:JonathanMayUK/Wayra.

Please read WP:CORP and WP:COI before you begin editing. Remember that the references must be references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. They have to discuss the company not just record an investment or acquisition, and be written by independent writers and journalists show make it clear they are not just repeating the press releases.

That it's the largest in its field is relevant, but not determinative, but you must have a source for it. That any of the companies have been substantial enough for WP articles would help. That notable people have visited there is usually not even relevant. It's done for the PR value, and we see no reason to repeat it.

It must provide information that a general reader coming across he name of the company would want to know, not directed at those who might want to participate or contribute. It can mention the social purpose of the group, but not talk extensively about its worthy intentions . It needs not discuss the principles of company law in the uK under which it is organised & regulated. It must not use adjectives of praise, the material given should show the notability so obviously that it isn't necessary.

The article UnLtd is not very satisfactory for many of these reasons, It uses words like "outstanding", It does not say what it has actually accomplished in the 13 years it has been operating , and not a single one of its references are really satisfactory, except the first one which can be used as a basis for the plain facts. At present, unless I, you, or someone fixes it, it is very likely to be deleted.

Techstars may have apparently written by a PR firm specializing in writing of WP , for it shows the characteristic hallmarks: about half of it is an anecdotal account of the formation of the company, which is of interest only to the principals and their immediate families. But it does the rest well: it shows the accomplishments, including formation of companies with articles here, many of its references are good. It needs editing, not deletion. I do that sort of editing & I'll clean it up tonight, if you want to look at it tomorrow.

After you've rewritten the article--try to do it within a week--, let me know here, and i will move it to mainspace if it is good enough. Let me know too, if you decide to add some ref showing accomplishments to UnLtd, I can fix it up also. Describe your joint enterprise in your own article, and refer to it in the Unltd one. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, a while back I asked you for your position on local interest topics. I think you may have forgotten about it. Could you see if you can find the time to give it another swing? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 09:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

As before, the problem is maintaining them free from promotionalism. The more local the organization, the more likely it is that any available sources will be essentially press releases. for example, I've got this problem in my own neighborhood, Boerum Hill: there are a number of interesting creative projects of various genres, as well as some fascinating stores, all with good coverage in the fairly respectable local paper, but that paper will essentially write an article on anything in the general area, and will say more or less what the proprietors tell it. (The paper's political coverage I do trust, and i could use it to justify articles on every city councilman and community board member in the Brooklyn, not to mention the losing candidates, but I don't want to push it against the consensus they aren't notable ) So Iwait until the NYTimes or at least New York covers something in a substantial way--New York may be a bit of a tabloid sometimes, but it isn't a PR outlet. I love local journalism. I even read it when I don't know the area--it shows the way people live, in all their variety. If we could maintain the articles, I might want to do it.

The best hope for this is a local wiki. The attempts at a local wiki in NYC haven't really taken off--there are insufficient people in any one neighborhood who understand, and the ones that exist tend to be dominated by the real estate agents and local attorneys. Or possibly something built around Open Street Maps--that sort of a geographical interface makes sense. Or a combined wiki, Wikipedia Two, still maintaining NPOV and sourcing, but not requiring notability and not all that strict on promotionalism.

actually, I'd like a three way split, WP, the general encyclopedia; WP 2 for local content, and WP+, for academically reviewed material. Citizendium offered promise for that third part, but it 's manner or working drove off too many of the good people. I in fact joined it as one of the original group of expert editors, but I didn't get along with Larry, and if you didn't support him, there was no place for you there. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your responses. Reading what you say, and thinking about my own experiences, the problem here is that local newspapers are reliable on some subjects, but aren't necessarily reliable on all subjects. Because of that, we have no objective measure on how useful inclusion in a local newspaper is as a measure for inclusion in Wikipedia, and some organisations and individuals will take advantage off that to inject their self-promotion in to Wikipedia, so you prefer to rely on other sources that make it easier to draw a clear line. Is that roughly it, or am I just filling in my own perspective? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 09:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I prefer to rely on other methods than using the GNG to make it possible to draw a clear line. Decisions under the GNG come down to the details of what counts as reliable especially with respect to the key words "substantial" and "independent." Depending on what one wants to include or exclude, questions of what is a RS for notability purposes can often be rationally argued either way. But I've learned to work with the GNG, since it is unfortunately still the rule and likely to remain so.

And our key problem now is dealing with promotionalism. It's hard enough to deal with it in articles on major organizations--our standards for what we've accepted before were incredibly lax, and probably 90% of the articles on commercial and non-commercial organizations need to be rewritten. I'm reluctant to start including any thing that would add to the problem. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

at User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 3#Arkiv för nordisk filologi. Just thought it would be fair to let you know. -- Hegvald ( talk) 13:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply

thanks, I'll be making a response there. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I've now made a response. Let me know if I can help with anything. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I created that article a few months before the fight and not one contribution was made to this day. And you say it needs updating, but who's gonna do it? Cause I'm not. I only create them and start with the basics. -- 2Nyce 11:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply

As you say, it is much more fun starting articles than maintaining them. Unfortunately, an encyclopedia needs updating, and a project dependent upon volunteers most of whom are active for only a few years at best, will always have difficulties in this. But the solution is not to delete the articles you are personally no longer interested in. The short term fix is to mark them as needing updating--and possibly call attention of the closest working group to the problem. Ultimately, it's getting more participants with a wide range of interests, and our continuing usefulness depends on this. In another direction, our developing use of structured metadata will make some things easier to maintain including eventually even sports results. To some degree, a reliance upon technology is what has not only gotten us started, but may keep us going. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

at User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 3#Arkiv för nordisk filologi. Just thought it would be fair to let you know. -- Hegvald ( talk) 13:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply

thanks, I'll be making a response there. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I've now made a response. Let me know if I can help with anything. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi D. I'm politely requesting you review Stephane Bancel. A large number of delete "votes" from Randolph, Arlington, and Boston IPs. I deleted some promo fluff from the page that clouded the picture. Some of the sources are in French, which are by my read RS with clear editorial oversight and an identifiable author. My question: Do you think the subject is notable? NaturalScholar ( talk) 01:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I shall look, but it's better when asking someone to look at an ongoing discussion, not to frame the question for them, but to let them evaluate what factors to look at all on their own. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Regarding the IPs, I do think that there may be some socking going on. I'll provide a little background. A couple of days ago, I discovered IP 24 deleting the article part by part. I reverted their edits and the IP started a conversation on my talk page [1]. I told the IP would look at the article and give them my view of its notability. I told them that though marginal, I thought he was notable enough not to get deleted in AfD. The IP then found evidence that the article with the correct spelling of the first name had previously been deleted in AfD. I decided that it would be best to send it through the AfD process again and I also hoped to show a potentially problematic IP how things are properly done here. I think the latter goal did not work.-- I am One of Many ( talk) 17:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC) reply

If you want to show anyone how things are properly done, AfD is not a good place. If you want to show them how to get things done here, then it does do that. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

You PROD'd Synechron in early June, so I think I ought to inform you I've nominated it for deletion. There's a somewhat complicated history both there and at Synechron Technologies, which was AfD'd earlier - after realising it was essentially a recreation of an earlier version of Synechron, I closed that AfD early, made it a redirect, and nominated the original article. Yngvadottir ( talk) 04:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, I made a comment addressing some points you made on my AN/I discussion at [2].Thanks! Factor-ies ( talk) 08:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, just to let you know that as you contributed to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anthony Seldon/Box of seals, there is a related discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal transportation which you may be interested in. Thank you! Seal Boxer ( talk) 14:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I've taken a look. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Agricola44's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi DGG. I stumbled on a stub article today: John McCabe (author). He's Professor of Molecular Endocrinology at the University of Birmingham but also a novelist. The thing is, his real name is Christopher John McCabe. As a scientist (his primary career), he is known as Chris McCabe. As a novelist, he has two pseudonyms: John McCabe and John Macken. He deliberately does this to keep the science and novelist careers separate. I somehow feel the current title is not quite right, but am unsure as to what is the optimal one, and what redirects (if any) could be titled. What do you think? To confuse things even further, we have an article about another writer with the same name: John McCabe (writer). Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 16:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

The best way to go for this one is to use the full name, Christopher John McCabe, with redirects from the others, and say more or less what you have just written in the lede paragraph. LC uses "McCabe, John (C. John)", but LC is concerned with him primarily as an author, whereas from the point of view of an encyclopedia, the notability seems equal. As for qualifiers, instead of author and writer, use (novelist) for his name as a novelist and (biologist) for his name as a biologist; for the other person, use (biographer) DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks DGG. I'll make the move and redirects later today. I really appreciate you taking the time to give me some (as always) good advice. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 05:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:David Gorski.
Message added MrBill3 ( talk) 00:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. reply

Thanks and respect for your work on WP! I appreciate you weighing in on the BLP notice board on David Gorski [3]. Thank you for a detailed and thoughtful post. I think the discussion can move back to the talk page of the article. In particular as Keithbob has copied most of your post there and given the BLP noticeboard conversation was on notability. I have made a number of edits based on you suggestions and posted a detailed response here. I look forward to your contributions to the article.

• I wish you the best of luck with your dental surgery.-- MrBill3 ( talk) 00:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

DGG thank you for your contributions to the David Gorski article. You have improved it considerably. It has also helped me learn about how to write for WP better. Also thank you for pointing out the appropriate place for the discussion of notability (AfD not BLPN), had I known that before it might have spared me some time and effort. You are clearly experienced both in WP and as a writer. Knowing that I find your initial sentence in your response ironic, “I see no need to argue specific points at this sort of length; regardless of what I see as the irrelevancy of some of what you say above, you did improve it.” [4]. What is the relevancy of mentioning you find some of what I said irrelevant if you are not going to discuss it? It seems to say, “You are wrong but it's not worth my bother to explain it to you.” I apologize for the TLDR and overcite. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to look at the information and create an encyclopedic entry based on it. This helped not only this article but my learning.

• For the record I am not the subject of the article and have no relationship to it (him). My interest in the article stems from WP:WikiProject Skepticism.
• What is the WP appropriate way to cite a book that is not paginated? If you could please refer me to a policy/guideline etc.
• The quote from McGill University was from the university website's description of the lecture not “what someone said at the conference”. [5]
• If you could figure how how to describe the Gorski's part in the discussion of Steve Job's death it would really help me learn how to write about something like this for WP. The way I see it there has been a substantial discussion on the topic and Gorski's input into the discussion has been recognized as notable. How to write it up and concisely and clearly???

Again I really appreciate your work. My intent was not to create a press release style article. I was just providing ALL (too much I get it) the information I had and working collaboratively to create the article. Your experience, guidance and input has been very helpful and informative. – – MrBill3 ( talk) 18:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately,promotionalism can exist even without a conflict of interest; we all have that to some degree on our favorite topics. and my experience about myself is we have to consciously try to not let it affect our editing. Many topics I think I can do that on, a few I've learned to stay away from because sometimes my edits there run into difficulties.FWIW, I have often defended articles on alt med people at AfD, sometimes beyond what the consensus decides, because I think the best way of presenting absurdity is to present it straight & hope intelligent people understand--Just as Voltaire and D'alembert presented religion in l'encycopedie. I recognize you are trying to write a proper article, & I think you can. About the specifics: Was the book really not published in a print edition? Are there chapters with names or numbers? If there's nothing at all , just say "unpaginated" as an explanation. If it is print, & you just can't reasonably find it, put a note in comment marks <!-- like this --> so someone will know to try to find it. What the sponsor of a conference says about it is publicity. . Obviously, a sponsor of something words everything as positively as possible. University PR depts are notoriously unreliable this way. (I removed the indication where the conference was to the note, but that may have been over-critical--I think it can go back--that a university sponsors a conference does give it a certain weight.) I cannot figure out how to do the part about Job's death because I don't think it relevant here. But there is an even better place to put it: the section on Jobs' illness in his bio. I see there's a quote there from another expert saying his use of alt med was significantly harmful since Gorski is an expert on both oncology and alt med, you can add a quote from him saying it probably wasn't (I assume Gorski means that with pancreatic cancer, he would have died just as soon no matter what he did); Then you can make a link to the Gorski article. (Given the subject, & the number of people who watch that page, I'd propose it on the article talk p. first. If there are problems, let me know, & I'll comment there.) I'll check it for other appropriate links. Incoming links as much as outgoing links form the network of hypertext, but they need to be made sparingly. .

and by saying I wasn't going to respond in detail, I meant I wasn't going to respond to everything. If I've helped you learn how to write here, that's the most important sort of thing I do here. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for all your help and your latest reply. I really think you have helped me learn how to write better articles and will award the appropriate barnstar when I find it. I will be mindful of promotionalism and NPOV.

The book in question was chaptered with letters. I was under the impression that electronic versions of books were fully acceptable citations on their own. Is there a policy that indicates the need for/importance of citing a print version. I see publication moving online/electronic across multiple genres. This general subject is of interest to me (electronic information) and I appreciate your input and WP's policies. I see a potential issue with evaluating reliability and or notability.

Thanks for the advice on the Job's controversy. I will definitely be taking some time and thought before I edit that page.

• In the Gorski article apparently another editor found the statement, “and the use of only evidence-based medicine to treat diseases “ spin, WP:OR [6] or overstatement. [7] – – MrBill3 ( talk) 19:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I have added the Gorski comment to the Steve Jobs article as you suggested. If you would be so kind as to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Steve_Jobs#Impact_of_Alternative_Medicine_Use I would appreciate it. Thank you for all your assistance and work in WP. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 01:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I wanted to ask if you could give a second opinion on this section of the Yelp inc. page. I originally had this under History. It has since then been substantially expanded and move into a "Controversy" section, before the feedback came in that we should avoid such names. I still feel it could be trimmed about 30% and should be moved back to History. For example, some of the individual accusations of Yelp manipulating reviews are only cited to local press or a Forbes blogger and are not as prominent as those that there were high-profile lawsuits for. There is some excessive wordiness, etc. But before I make specific suggestions, I would want to make sure that I am correct generally. I would like to avoid the appearance of micro-managing and lobbying in controversial areas. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

responded there. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks! It's a good thing I did not push for trims. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Do you think I can borrow you again here? If I have not over-burdened you with my requests yet. It is valuable to have input from someone that you can be confident will be correct. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

That was a truly extraordinarily brilliant statement. Let's hope the truly important people in the Foundation are following that discussion. My fear is that they are probably not, and that if a consensus is reached in support, they will then chime in and declare such a council as having no authority. Individually or as a body, they've already demonstrated in no uncertain terms in the past that they will not hesitate to disregard what the volunteers want and will continue to press for developments that they 'think' the community should have. The problem of communication has always been an issue - when the WMF doesn't want to know, it puts its hands over its ears. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm not actually opposed to the latest developments: I find some of the features of the notification interface quite useful, and I'm very glad we have the visual editor, though for the sort of thing I mostly do, it's not yet useful. But it's allowing the NYC chapter to plan workshops in WP editing for non computer-literate groups that we could not previously have reached. And when I show it to computer-literate people who think the wikitext too much of a bother, they all say they're more likely to actually edit. The main thing the Foundation did wrong here is not having it years ago, and if they over-reacted by putting this one out before it was really ready, I can understand it. And I myself think I could adapt to any editing environment--any regular editor here should be able to do that.

But this would have been so much easier had they told us properly what they're doing, and asked our opinion, and persisted till they got consensus support, just as you and I must do if we want to make changes. Not all their views about communication are irrational; a good case could be made that it's the present in-project system of communication we have fallen into that is ridiculous, and I can see why they have such difficulty learning it. But if you want to talk to people and convince them, you have to learn their language. Trying to make them learn your superior ways is the arrogance of last century's imperialism. It developed together with modern capitalism, and elaborate NGOs and educational institutions, and those who come here with background in the corporate or formal institutional world tend to regard us as unenlightened primitives whose chaotic structure is incapable of actual function. Thus I have a practical suggestion, that everyone hired by the foundation, spend their first month in an apprenticeship editing a WP project on topics of their own choice, and helping with our housekeeping, and continue to do so for maybe 10% of their time, out on the shop floor with the working people. Even the missionary and anthropologist expected to earn respect from knowing the natives on their own terms. The proposals for having selected persons as intermediates is like an anthropologist using only translators.

Of course, by our own lights, it's our pattern of working that it the true one, and the chaos only apparent. We are here not for technical or vocational reasons in the usual sense, but to build a major work for the benefit of mankind on a principle of equal collaboration. Our idealism is not just a corporate slogan, but our continuing motivation. And the reason we expect our way to be followed and respected is that we've actually succeeded--we've made something more functional and helpful than we would have dreamed possible when we started, and certainly one of greater size and importance than all the critics thought we'd every be able to do--the conventional wisdom was that we'd collapse at 1/4 our present size. Now the theorists must rethink the way humans can work in groups based on the way we and multitudes of other such groups have succeeded in working.

Of course we're imperfect. We have not solved all the problems of human interactions. We need skilled people coming in from outside to keep us vital, and prevent us from self-complacency. That most of the experienced editors edit for 4 years at most is actually is a good thing. Those working here are mostly people at their most experimental and creative periods, and also an increasing number who have wide practical experience. Our role is not necessarily to work in our old ways, but to teach the new people how to develop their own ways, but in a manner that will not destroy what has been already accomplished. We are rationally afraid of outsiders coming in to solve our problems, and leave us a desert. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

"they will not hesitate to disregard what the volunteers want and will continue to press for developments that they 'think' the community should have" That's for sure. PumpkinSky talk 02:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

WP:CRYSTAL does apply - winter 2013 is transfers in December 2013– January 2014 i.e. very much the future! Off to AFD I go... Giant Snowman 09:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

you may very well be right, in which case it will probably be deleted. It's good the decision isn;t left to one person, who, like me, may be ignorant DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, I posted a comment that I thought you might be interested in at the AN/I discussion board.

Thanks, Factor-ies ( talk) 09:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Instead of just posting warning boxes at the top of the article, could you please explain on the Talk Page your argument for flagging the article as being written like an advertisement and the content having been copied and pasted? It has been over a month and nothing has been discussed. Thanks, Vivj2012 ( talk) 10:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Promotional:use of adjectives of praise

copyvio: first section copied almost word for word from [8] DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Could you highlight the promotional content? I need examples of adjectives of praise so I can request another editor improves the content accordingly.Thanks Vivj2012 ( talk) 10:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG. The 'written like an advertisement' warning box has been at the top of the Ruby McGregor-Smith article for four months. Without knowing what's wrong with the content I'm unable to improve/resolve it. Could you get back to me when you have a moment? Many thanks Vivj2012 ( talk) 09:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply

It has been already voted to keep by Admins, so I will be removing the box you have placed on the article. Please do not go on a deleting spree. Thanks ( talk) 10 July 2013 (NZST)

the AfD will decide, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deon Swiggs. I've been wrong before, and that's the purpose of AfD. to see what others think. I suggest that a more compact and less hagiographic article might help persuade people to keep it. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elly Tanaka. I don't have access to the more serious sources that would be required to this one justice. Hope you're well. Best, -- j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

done. thanks. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reviewing the article I am putting together on Jane Close Conoley. I would like to move the article back to Jane Close Conoley, as that is the form of her name that she prefers and uses in her publications, at public speaking events, professionally, as a professor, and as an administrator. Close is her maiden name, and she uses Close Conoley as a compound surname.

The other edits make complete sense to me, and in fact I was going through and deleting significant sections of what had been in her CV. I have also begun tracking down additional secondary sources to use to cite and to build the narrative portions of the article.

yes, I saw your good edits. I moved the page back again--our practices here vary. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGC. These divisions are huge and in terms of revenue and sales are bigger than some companies. Toll is big in Australia, Europe and Asia. I have only really started the articles. I think others will contribute to them.

Toll is really six very different companies using the toll brand. They have achieved their current size by acquiring many smaller companies around the world some of which have wikipedia pages. I believe that the next part of the process is to move the content from these the old articles into one of the six new articles. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_IPEC , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Aviation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Priority are all part of Toll Global Express and this content needs to be migrated to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Global_Express page. So I think that this means that there will be fewer pages in Wikipedia about Toll not more. I know that some Wikipedia editors get overprotective about their work so I am concerned about the reaction that I will get when I suggest on the talk page of these articles that they be effectively closed down and their content moved to the "History" section of the Toll Global Express page. Do you have any advice for best practices in regards to this process? Thanks for the help with the referencing. Regards -- PinkAechFas ( talk) 19:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it would in any case be a good idea to start there, merging the smallest, so I will support you. But please declare any conflict of interest; not that there need be any, for I have cleaned up similar article groups in the same way as you are proposing. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGC. These divisions are huge and in terms of revenue and sales are bigger than some companies. Toll is big in Australia, Europe and Asia. I have only really started the articles. I think others will contribute to them.

Toll is really six very different companies using the toll brand. They have achieved their current size by acquiring many smaller companies around the world some of which have wikipedia pages. I believe that the next part of the process is to move the content from these the old articles into one of the six new articles. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_IPEC , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Aviation and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Priority are all part of Toll Global Express and this content needs to be migrated to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Global_Express page. So I think that this means that there will be fewer pages in Wikipedia about Toll not more. I know that some Wikipedia editors get overprotective about their work so I am concerned about the reaction that I will get when I suggest on the talk page of these articles that they be effectively closed down and their content moved to the "History" section of the Toll Global Express page. Do you have any advice for best practices in regards to this process? Thanks for the help with the referencing. Regards -- PinkAechFas ( talk) 19:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it would in any case be a good idea to start there, merging the smallest, so I will support you. But please declare any conflict of interest; not that there need be any, for I have cleaned up similar article groups in the same way as you are proposing. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

....I have denied the speedy deletion; I know you are much more knowledgeable about deletions then me, and if you deem it speedy-worthy...well, I still see the claim to be the "...the youngest professional youth team manager.." as enough to avoid outright deletion. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar ( talk) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

by all means decline any deletion you're not sure about--that's the point of having two admins work on them. (I sent this one to AfD ) The speedy criteria are supposed to be unambiguous, but in practice everything but the extreme cases has a wider range of interpretation. And, I make mistakes. Some admins claim otherwise, and I pretend to believe them. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG,

It looks like you are watching the Michael Johns page and wanted to inform you that I was going to be moving it to Michael Johns (business executive). Let me know if this causes any problems for you. Josiah2013 ( talk) 23:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC) reply

If he had been only a business executive as vp of a company, would he been notable? But not worth arguing, a which is my general view about titles. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I've come across two articles, The White Tower (Johnston novel) and Eden (Johnston novel), which you recently proposed for merger into their author's article — but the title that you proposed to merge them into was not actually Dorothy Johnston, the author of the novels, but Dorothy Johnson, a redirect to a different and unrelated person who had nothing whatsoever to do with them. So I just wanted to let you know that I've revised both of your nominations to point them to the correct target. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 14:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC) thanks -- DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, this is a friendly heads-up that I took off the POV tag from this article awaiting an actual discussion or dispute on the talk page, which (the tag mentions) is supposed to exist first. Please open this, explaining what the issues are, and then re-add the tag. Thanks! hgilbert ( talk) 11:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Re-reading, I used a more exact tag, on both it and the main article. I've added a mention why on each. I'm not sure how extensively I will have time to get involved in this closed circle of articles, but I call attention to problems when I see them. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

OK...if you do have time, it would be helpful if you can point to a few exemplary and specific issues. People have sometimes asked for more criticism integrated into the article, for example, but we need to find reliable sources to draw this from (blogs and personal websites not really qualifying here). hgilbert ( talk) 09:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I did comment; but we need to find discussions of their methods in general works dealing with the topic of elementary and secondary educational curriculums. They seem prominent enough that I would expect them to be easily findable, though not perhaps online. The main article seems to have some relevant material that could be used. If it truly hard to find outside their own publications, then it's similar to the problem we have with many topics: if nobody from the main stream of discussion has covered their methods , are they notable outside their own group ? DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, I looked at the google cache for this article, he seems notable, and the article didn't seem to be particularly bad. Why was it summarily deleted? it doesn't make sense - even if it was created by a blocked user, others had edited it, so it should have gotten a chance, even an AFD for example. Can you restore it so we can decide as a community whether to delete? -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 05:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

See the discussion at WP:AN] This particular group of socks, based around User:Morning277 and User:MooshiePorkFace, is so much a problem, and their actions in inserting hundreds of promotional articles on non notable or at best borderline subjects, presumably for money, is so repugnant to the spirit of a honest encyclopedia, that it fully justifies the use of G5. As you probably know, I have never been a supporter of the blanket use of this deletion criterion, in cases where the reason for block or ban is unrelated to the article, But this is a case where we need to take drastic action in own defense, to prevent the degeneration of WP into a mere vehicle for advertising. Some few of the subjects about which these socks have written may merit an article, in which case you or some other responsible editor should write it from scratch. I am not deleting these articles without looking at them. This particular article showed the characteristic problems: the notability is as an architect, but half the article was devoted to the careers of the subject's parents and the activities of the subject unrelated to notability. Why? because there happened to be sources. This is a dishonest approach to the construction of bad articles, and we must not tolerate it. DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks, I didn't know about the promotional-stub-creation. Though it's odd someone would have paid money for that. Ok thanks anyway.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 13:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I'll try may best to find English sources. all what I have now are Arabic ones. the problems is that most of the media call most of the armed opposition groups as FSA 3bdulelah ( talk) 07:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Arabic sources are fine. Just give a translation of a key sentence. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hey DGG, I declined the speedy on Bonobos. The article had some RS, so it was just enough to where I thought it wouldn't pass cleanly as a speedy. I've found a few sources but notability is still in question. I think this one is better served as an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

apparently another admin deleted it. My current view is that any article containing a sentence or two about the motivation for forming the company is suspect. And see the following comment on my page. It feels a little like Dec 7. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decline of library usage. Warden ( talk) 16:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

yes, there is nothing more amusing that taking a statistical report from an organization and finding the holes in it. I used to get library statistics and do this for my class--nice to have another opportunity. Unlike then, I have other things to do, or I could have kept going for pages. Academic grade for the article, B+ (as of the time it was written--if someone presented it now it would be a B- for outdated sources), grade for the deletion argument, C-. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG. Do you think this might be linked to the Morning277 sock-farm? I motice it contains a link to a article about a person that was recently G:5 salted by you, and seems to be related. Pete -- Shirt58 ( talk) 12:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

yes. At this point I think we need to at least think about the possibility for every article on a small and medium size company in that and related subjects. DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know I've declined the G11 tag on the article as I don't think it's solely promotional. That said, I didn't read this little exchange until after that, so sorry if I've trampled on the sock investigation. Basalisk  ^{inspect damage}⁄ _berate 10:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, I see your point. I am going to set up a time to talk with Blue Raspberry to get more guidance. I would like to be able to contribute in a meaningful way. Thanks, Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by FieldsTom ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I've filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal Angel (company) (2nd nomination), since the first AFD, which you closed, was heavily tainted by sockpuppets. Thanks. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 01:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

reasonable thing to do. Are there others that need relisting? DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, I have replied on my talk page. Best regards -- Shorty23sin ( talk) 06:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

DGG,

Thank you very much for editing the page that I started on Keith N. Schoville. This was my first attempt at creating a page and I was not clear at all as to why it kept getting rejected. One thing that you said in my talk page was " It is necessary to source the books to a reliable source, which is not the books themselves;". I did not realize this -- so thank you for pointing it out.

You also wrote "In some cases, it's not clear the extent of the contribution, whether he wrote the entire work, edited it, or wrote a single chapter--it makes a considerable difference". I have a personal copy of most of the books and it should be easy to determine the answer. How should I indicate that he was the author of the entire work?

Bruce Kissinger ( talk)

get worldcat refs for the books and add them--it shows the details and discriminates editor from author, and the entry has a list of who did which chapters. Another thing which will help is about the commentaries--some are clearly aimed at students, and showing they are widely used meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I left a note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Plott and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Stemkoski about combining the two into a multi since any contention would likely be similar. czar  ·  · 06:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

sure. I don't do it because it has to be done manually, & the manual AfD procedure is a nuisance. Until there was a script, I almost never nominated for AfD, nor do I do processes like spi or any other multistage procedure, & I try to find an alternative to the formal copyright problems board. Figuring out what to do is difficult enough. When people build something using computer programs, they should know enow enough to automate the procedures for using it. "Know enough" both technically and in having the sense to make it a priority. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decline of library usage. Warden ( talk) 16:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

yes, there is nothing more amusing that taking a statistical report from an organization and finding the holes in it. I used to get library statistics and do this for my class--nice to have another opportunity. Unlike then, I have other things to do, or I could have kept going for pages. Academic grade for the article, B+ (as of the time it was written--if someone presented it now it would be a B- for outdated sources), grade for the deletion argument, C-. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG (or if I may call you David),

An article I recently wrote made you suggest that a spam marker should be placed on my talk page. First, the article I wrote comes from an unbiased (perhaps even anti-finance) point of view. I am trying to create more articles about industries that have been growing since the financial crisis in 2007-2008, but it is discouraging when I am then labeled as spam for doing so. I think Wikipedia could really benefit from the inclusion of my article on Chicago Clearing Corporation and the ones that I have started to write on companies like it. This industry has been featured in the NY Times and other prominent publications, yet it lacks background information on how it really formed and what it is actually doing. I think my article helps to shed light on this and I would like to keeping writing more about companies doing similar things. Please reconsider marking me as spam as all I want to do is help Wikipedia grow by injecting some much-needed modern ideas into the site.

Thanks,

CarletonkidonCUT (Rhys) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarletonkidonCUT ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

You probably are correct, My apologies, and that's why we admins normally just tag articles, and let another admin review them & do the deletion them, because any one person can and does make mistakes. I'll try to give you some detailed suggestions. I will continue tonight. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG, seeing that you're actively editing/administrating right now, I'd like to ask you for help with this file. It has been tagged for missing source information, but I was able to verify the permission and attribute the authors. The problem is though that this software has been abandoned and I can't find any direct links to this image. We could of course claim that it comes with the software package that is still available for download. What do you think about this? De728631 ( talk) 15:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

A statement to that effect would be fine for me, though I do not know if the regulars at that process will accept it. I have never understood the way the criteria for files are applied, and, in the case of NFCC, I disagree with some of them. I'm not going to try to impose my own opinions, or try to convince determined people in a long and probably unsuccessful fight to change consensus, so I avoid dealing with questions about files. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Alright, thanks for your input. De728631 ( talk) 18:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

FYI, I was right with my assumption. That image is actually part of an archive that is still available for download. Problem solved. De728631 ( talk) 19:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 07:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hey DGG, I've come across an article that seems like it was originally intended as a spam article, Joel Goldman. I've removed most of the promotional speak, but there isn't much out there source-wise. Of the stuff still on the article, only four are even remotely usable. Most of them are local and one is sort of dubious as far as usability goes. (Canton Repository) I started to nominate it, thought better of it, then sort of feel like I should've just gone with my first urge. I figured I'd ask you to help look for sources and maybe ask if you think it should be nominated. You can find the original version of the article here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC) reply

He is however a mildly notable author. judging by worldcat holdings. tho some of his works are self published. I will look for book reviews. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I commented at the AfD --found a few, notability is borderline DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Yeah... that's sort of why I hesitated with nominating him. There's some notability, enough to where I'm not entirely comfortable voting delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I came across this orphan article about the Mayor of Lynnwood, Washington ( Don Gough). I think this might be a good test for deletion. Enos733 ( talk) 19:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply

This would seem to be a clear violation of BLP policy, I listed it for A7, because it does not quite qualify for G10. The negative information is sourced, DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello. I write because my item has been deleted for being promotional. Yet another article similar to mine or just has not been erased. He advised me to do my article a consultant Legiotex Article modeled Apifresh, because I have no idea of ​​the use of Wikipedia. I do not understand why the two items that are similar European projects. One remains in Wikipedia and the other has been removed. So it would be very grateful, if I say I should delete or phrases are incorrect by having commercial hue. Thank you very much, greetings. Thanks for your help. I'm trying to search for similar items to see and compare. To correct mine. Any help from you will be welcome, especially where promotional tone note in the article. Rubendesign ( talk) 10:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Rubendesign ( talk) 08:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I'll give you some advice in the next few days. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG,

A page of mine was recently marked for deletion (David Marks, Baltimore County Councilman). I apologize that I was not following proper Wikipedia procedure. I want to make this a genuine article on Councilman Marks, and am not trying to make it a political advertisement. I was wondering if you could tell me if this page for a Baltimore City Councilman is in correct form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Kraft

I want to get this article right and apologize for not creating it in the proper manner.

Thank you, SKahl7180 Skahl7180 ( talk) 14:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Carl Stokes (Baltimore) is better. . They all need some edits to remove adjectives of praise. And the legislative history should include only bills that they are actually primarily responsible for, with a 3rd party source to prove it, not one of several sponsors. Concentrate on factual things, such as the elections, not on the positions, which belong in an political advertisement Let me know when you are ready.~DGG

Thanks for your edit description here, it's much nicer and more informative than the usual form message that gets left. -- TKK ^{bark !} 00:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I created the term ... as a satirical/parody of Apple's new design for its operating system but it is actually becoming a term used by a small group of people. I identified this as parody in the first sentence of the article. I was not trying to deceive anyone or create online vandalism.

At the forum section on MacRumors.com we have a conversation thread using the term ... with over 4,000 readers and 60 something contributors.

I have read the notices that I need to cite the Wiki sources that I quoted in my article. I will happily do this if my post does not get deleted.

This is my first Wiki post and I am excited to be a part of this community.

Take care and thank your time and this invaluable resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tampalionel ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply

not a hoax precisely, but vandalism in the sense of utterly non-constructive editing. But I think still appropriate for speedy deletion as A7, non-notable web content: most of the comments either denied the existence of the term or simply ignored it. Alternatively we could see it as your self-advertising, criterion G11, or as an attack on the designer, whose bio is half the article, criterion G10. Pick your own choice of one or more of the 4 reasons. I've modified your comment to avoid giving another source for this. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Pretty much what DGG said. I've left you a warning about re-creating this article, as this can be seen as disruptive behavior. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for deleting the Kino Lorber page. I didn't expect a response that quickly. -- Sunshineisles2 ( talk) 03:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC) reply

actually, it was much longer than it should have been. copyvios usually get deleted in a few minutes. This took almost 5 hours, because very few admins are active at 20:00 on Saturday. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Ah, I've never been involved with a copyvio before.-- Sunshineisles2 ( talk) 18:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, DGG. I noticed you deleted the article I created Ram Revilla Murder Case. Thank you for just implementing the rules on WP. However, I believe it is worthy to be applied here since that article is popularly known not just the "base" country however in some international countries aswell. As even, a suspect was listed in the Red Notice list of the Interpol. It was my mistake to create it without posting the whole article, in the article various reference are cited. Anyways, I'm new here so, I'm asking for guidance. I will post the whole article on my Page. How would I be able to post the same article again once it is already worthy? Fearjesus ( talk) 06:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Moreover, the victim is a brother of a senator in the Philippines, and the suspects were their siblings aswell. Everybody was monitoring the case, I was just hoping that people could just go to one site for the important details off the case. Fearjesus ( talk) 06:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC) reply

The BLP guideline apply not just in article space but anywhere in WP. The victim is notable enough to have an article, and does, but that does not excuse including names of people merely under suspicion--let alone arrested and then released-- whether in mainspace or on your talk page. If someone is actually convicted, it could go in the article, but it still wouldn't justify a separate article on the crime. The page is devoted to details about the crime and speculation about who did it. As I tried to explain to you, we do not do that. The material on your page violated the BLP guidelines, and I have removed it. If you reinsert it anywhere in WP, without agreement in a discussion, you are very likely to be blocked. If you want to discuss it, I already suggested the BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for the warning. Anyways, pardon my ignorance for not reading the BLP Policies. I just have a question, if certain names of individuals (suspects) are not allowed, could I just hide them under initials? Obviously names of witnesses are allowed. Thanks a lot. ′ Fearjesus ( talk) 04:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Also, names of certain individuals into my research were properly properly sourced. Fearjesus ( talk) 04:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

the relevant part of the policy for this are UNDUE and DO NO HARM. Even when it's sourced, the exposure that WP gives is so great, that we don't add to people's problems. The exception is when there is so much reporting that even our additional visibility is not much ,compared to what is out there all ready. What we usually look for in something like this is major international coverage. And even so, it would take something really sensational on an international level for us to make it a separate article. If you're still not convinced, I suggested where you should ask. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello. I am having a difficult time deciding if the publication Vestoj is worthy of inclusion, and I am hoping you will give an opinion. It is currently at AFD.

I looked at its web site, and it does seem to be a serious endeavor. The references in the article are not bad, and again I get the sense that this publication is a serious endeavor from the English-language references.

Also, if you take a look you will see this is kind of a hybrid publication. According to its description:

Vestoj is a forum where academia, the museum world and the fashion industry can work together and with active communication. We write about the cultural phenomenon that is fashion in a manner that opens up for dialogue between theory and practice in order to raise awareness for fashion as a cultural phenomena and field of research and cultivate an even greater understanding for the discipline. Vestoj will exist outside of seasonally-based trends and news-focused articles. Instead we aim to encourage and champion the critical and independent voice within fashion as well as absolute creative freedom. In order to ensure that we remain free in thought and action Vestoj will have no advertising. Published annually, Vestoj focuses solely on sartorial matters, bringing together academia and industry in a bid to combine academic theory, critical thinking and a bit of good old fashioned glamour.

Thanks in advance. ------ Steve Quinn ( talk) 15:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I've found whatever I could, and said as much as I think is justified, but it's borderline at best. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks again. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

You added a statement and then put a "citation needed" tag on it. That is very strange. "It claims to be the largest minorityt-owned investment firm" could be referenced to their official website or wherever you saw them making that statement at. Dream Focus 01:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Sometimes I have to stop and eat, so I put in a marker. But I see you wrote the original article: you put in the links to the founders, so you could have written & referenced it a little fuller in the first place & it wouldn't have been nominated for speedy by someone who didn't think to check the links. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I kept looking for information, I read through so much of their website, I searched about everywhere, and I could not find anything at all past what I did. A company that makes billions of dollars should have more mention of them somewhere. I just thought it rather odd to put something in with a citation needed tag attached to it. I saw this http://www.arielinvestments.com/ariel-in-the-media/ and assumed there would be more to add to the article, but upon closer inspection couldn't think of anything there that could be added anywhere. George Lucas's new wife is the president of that company, so it got ample passing mention in the news media when they got married, so I assumed more people would be rushing to the Wikipedia to find out information about it like I did. Dream Focus 10:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you didn't understand me--I did not even have to search, I found the link in the article on its executive. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, DGG.

I noticed that you had deleted the page for Crown Disposal, Inc a few months ago. I was hoping to convince you that an A7 ("not significant") was unwarranted. Crown Disposal is a fairly sizeable company and a large player in the California waste management industry, operating multiple waste facilities as well as having relationships with other large players, including Recology, a very large and very well-known company.

Further, the events that have occurred at their landfill in Lamont, California are perhaps significant in and of themselves - two young men died there in very unfortunate circumstances, caused in fact by extremely poor safety equipment, practices and training. In fact, the local authorities revoked their permit for operation, and there is an ongoing court battle over whether or not this company can continue to operate, especially in light of their multiple safety and environmental violations.

Given the current situation in the area (Lamont was reported to have the worst air quality in the US) and Crown / CRRR's involvement in local environmental destruction, I believe that Crown Disposal is a significant entity, worthy of a Wikipedia entry, and I believe the article as written explained that. Of course, I'd be happy to work with you and other editors to improve the article, if you'd like to see it improved.

Wikipedia is a place everyone - from kids at school to housewives, homebuyers, residents, workers, even important corporate types - goes to learn about people, places, historical events, and corporations. I believe that an article about a corporation with this kind of track record is an important addition to Wikipedia.

Thanks, DGG. Appreciate any comments or help you might be willing to share! Sandyhart68 ( talk) 00:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I will take a look today DGG ( talk ) 13:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I see the AfC you created on Apr 25, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crown Disposal Co., within a few minutes of when you created the identicalmainspace article.The AfC was declined on May 1 by another editor. I wonder why you didn't mention the AfC just now. I see you added a related paragraph to Recology to say they used one of the company's facilities for a part of the operations. You also added information about not yet substantiated charges against Recology. You're obviously somewhat involved in this issue. G11 is used not only for articles promoting a company, but articles promoting a cause. Obviously it can be difficult to distinguish between neutrally reporting about a cause or a company and promoting it. I think the best step is to proceed with improving the AfC, rather than restoring the article and, probably, sending it to AfD .

If this was a natural person, I'd say that what you were doing is added poorly supported negative information. Our standards are not quite as strict for companies, though I am not sure all your information is supported at all, or that it is proportionate coverage, or that everything you added as been in a neutral manner-- as one example, in an article on another company you said "Republic Services has also had several high-profile fines..." -- where does the word "high-profile" come from? Had the company used it in praising itself, it would be removed, and this works in both directions.

I have every personal sympathy for your general position, but that's not relevant here.

What I think we need in articles on companies is greater attention to the history of the company, rather than the routine appointments and the occasional court case. Some of the articles on firms in this industry have extensive earlier copyvio sections on this from company publications. This is of course the wrong way to go about it, but they will serve adequately as sources. Historical data for any public company and most large private companies is relatively easy to obtain, and any business library can help--most even medium size public libraries have the basic sources. Finding them on line can be difficult ,as the relevant databases tend to be quite expensive (and focused on the immediate current situation) Resist the temptation to tie these too closely in with social developments--this sort of connection should only be done when there are third party sources noneed to apologize. Tho afcwas intended to make things discussing it. With the background of a substantial article, specific incidents can be given without being disproportionate to the rest of the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks, DGG for getting back to me on this. I apologize about not mentioning the the AfC; it's been awhile since I looked at the page, or even thought about Crown, until I was discussing them with a friend. I believe what happened when I submitted the article originally, I didn't understand what had happened to the article; while it was in queue for review, it appeared to me as if it had disappeared, so I just made it again (while I'm on wikipedia a lot, and have made edits and contributions, that was my first stab at creating a page - chalk it up to me being a newbie, and please accept my humble apology for making rookie errors).

Your points are well taken. When I have some time, I'll try to get back to the original submission and spruce it up a bit and try again. Thanks! Sandyhart68 ( talk) 15:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

no need to apologize. AfC was intend to make things easier for beginners, but instead it often just adds to the possible sources of confusion. We're having an interesting discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013 of whether we should require it; that seems to be soundly rejected, and the discussion is now more on the question of whether we should even recommend it. I think your opinion might be worthwhile having. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I'll probably be able to add a bit. You may want to drop a note at WP:CHICAGO and WP:FINANCE, too.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello again; I have undeleted the above after a request at WP:REFUND, after talking to the deleting admin. Just to let you know, in case you want this to go via AfD. Cheers. Lectonar ( talk) 11:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I think I'll wait and see if anyone else does anything about it. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGC,

Thanks for your review of the SOTI Inc. page I've created. I see it's been nominated for a speedy deletion, and deleted, before I was able to contest it. I apologize, I did not receive an email notification.

I want to present my case here in an attempt to resurrect the page.

I have tried to keep the content very factual and non-promotional, as my goal is not to create an advertisement on Wikipedia, but instead a basic company page. Could you let me know what you saw as advertorial? I will revise it immediately.

On July 9th, I edited the content to remove what another user pointed out may sound promotional. I hope this assists keeping the page up.

I have followed the same format as similar companies on the site: MobileIron and AirWatch.

Regarding significant articles, I want to provide the below coverage of SOTI from well respected journalists and publications. These articles are not reprinted press releases, and have editors tied to them.

The references in the page itself are not reprints of a press release. The InformationWeek piece is authored by a well respected journalist: Larry Seltzer

In addition, SOTI was the top scorer in a Network World review of Mobile Device Management vendors, available here: Network World - Top tools for BYOD management

I'd like to provide additional editorial features on the company and its solutions:

InformationWeek Education - Smartphones Hit Schools, MDM Vendors Don Thinking Caps

CMSwire - SOTI Releases MobiControl V10 to Manage Personal Devices in the Enterprise

eWeek - Soti Unveils MDM Platform MobiControl V10

Mobile Fanpage - Italian review of SOTI solution

Computing Canada - Last Year, We All Talked About a BYOD Problem, It's Time That We Acknowledge That Our Biggest Mobile Problems Are Now Under Control

InformationWeek BYTE - BYOD Tablets, Smartphones: About To 'Disrupt' The Classroom?

THE Journal - Westbury School District Deploys Mobile Device Management System

As time goes on, I'd like to expand the page to include more products, awards won, and additional information- but I wanted to start with a simple upload first.

I'd appreciate any help you can provide. Thank you!

Msalmassian ( talk) 05:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it's fixable, so I restored it, and put a tag on it which will should keep it from being renominated for a day or two; I suggest you improve it immediately--and here's what's needed:

Awards are important, if they are major awards, and you won the award, not just placed as a finalist. And if it isn't an awards for best new company or the like, which usually means not yet notable. Add them right now.

Full editorial reviews are the best references. Not mere announcements, or inclusion in a group of products, or copies of your PR. Even the best magazines in this field often report announcements, and most of them will sometimes print PR, though they usually indicate the source.

I read every one of the sources listed on the article and here. 1. The first listing is just a reprint from Gartner. You need to replace it with the Gartner link itself, which is a usable brief review; fortunately, it is in the part of their site that is publicly accessible here.2. Soti.net obviously can be used only for a description of uncontested facts, not for proving notability ; 3.telcompaer is just a notice. 4. information week may be by a respected source, but here in this case clearly just reproduced the pressrelease. 5 & 6. The samsung links are just advertisements. Of the additional ones you give, 7. that's the reprint of Gartner again 8. Network world. this is a full independent review, and is usable. 9+ the others are just press releases or mentions. except for THE Journal, which can be used to support the statement that they use it.

So you do have 3 usable 3rd party references plus the company web site. Remove the others. I think it might stand up at AfD, though you can expect it to be soon listed there.

As for the other articles, I made major cuts of inappropriate material in both , and will be checking them further.Many of our articles on computer products are contaminated with promotionalism,. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, I've taken on board what you've said and would appreciate some feedback, when you get a chance. There's been a few problems with your hints though: Firstly there are no known recordings of his works - Unfortunately there doesn't exist any Austrian discography reliable or otherwise. Conversations with the Austrian Mediathek in Vienna and various libraries were equally fruitless. Reviews of his works suffer a similar fate: - Nothing can be researched in EBSCO host 'cause anything over 30 years isn't deemed valid (impact factor etc etc - you're a librarian you know the jig). RILM etc don't offer any reviews either. I've cleaned up the referencing section and have had to quote an apparently anonymous site or two. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks Austriancomposers ( talk) 14:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

This can become a formidable research project, and it won't be necessary for justifying the existence of the article, thanks to the listing in Grove. I adjusted the style a little, made links to and from his notable students, and accepted it. It can always be improved later. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG,

just wanted to say thanks. THANK YOU!

Austriancomposers ( talk) 06:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hey DGG/Archive 78 Jul. 2013, you have a reply at my talk page, for when you have a moment czar  ·  · 03:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Replied czar  ·  · 05:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply

DGG, on July 18th, after User:Oirvin made a series of copyvio articles, you gave the following final warning to them about creating inappropriate pages: [9]. Well, the user has just recreated an identical version of Cloud Services Brokerage, again as a copyvio... Not sure what the next step is at this point... Singularity42 ( talk) 21:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I have reworked the original article. I would be happy to show you the new document with tracked changes. I ran the article through various plagiarism reports, nothing was flagged. Please let me know how to proceed so this submission is not deleted. Additionally, this the virtual-magazine article (which has been re-worked) was written by my client. Thanks for your help!

I've linked to the duplicate reports on the articles talk page. Singularity42 ( talk) 21:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC) reply

It remains too close. You need to rewrite from scratch, not by taking the text and modifying it. You must change not just the words, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas. After you have done, go back and make sure that there is no phrase or 2 or more words that is the same except unavoidable things such as the name of the organisation. Avoid copying from other sources also: the growth section is copied from the two references given. In addition, the title should be "loud service brokerage", We do not use capitals except for names of specific companies: we say "service providers" not "Service Providers"the contents should not repeat itself, or make judgements: "too difficult" "hugh business opportunity" (In my opinion, most articles that use Gartner as a source repeat its judgements of value, which is not usually appropriate here, even if specifically sourced,and if used at all must be put in sourced to specific part of the report where the term was used--it may be necessary with their reports to do it as a quotation; but most of the time, the way to handle them is not to repeat the judgement at all--just describe the concept. Do not use headings like "Why CSDs" -- you mean something like "Business role".

I deleted the article, but I'm not going to block you because the extent to which we avoid copyvio and Close paraphrase is sometimes difficult for newcomers to understand. What you want to do is try to write an article on this as different from Gartner as possible. It would help if you could find some academic references--there are many academic business journals, and if this is a notable concept there will be references from such sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Well so much for that idea. The user just re-created the article again. I've tagged for deletion under G12. Here's the duplicate detector report with the first page of the interview: [10]. Here's the report for page 2 of the interview: [11]. After the above conversation, I was hoping the editor would have avoided recreating the article in the same way, or checked in with one of us with a sandbox version, but it looks like we have reached a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation. Singularity42 ( talk) 23:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG: Hope you are all well. Please see the new discussions I have started at Talk:Holocaust#Follow-up discussion about a hasty decision. Feel free to add your learned comments over there. Thank you. IZAK ( talk) 08:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I am asking some people about this--interesting question. DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Would [12] qualify for CSD A7? Surfer43 ( talk) 05:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, someone else has already tagged it and it will soon be deleted DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I was about to G5 this article (Morning277) but saw that you had put some time into it, so will leave that decision up to you. I've ran across one or two articles you might have made a single minor edit to that didn't make the cut, but this was different. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER 14:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

it's borderline, both with respect to notability and promotionalism ; I deleted it as G5. Those edits were back in Jan.; I'm not sure I would have gone to the trouble today DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I figured you would, but your participation necessitated your endorsement, in my eyes. With this sockmaster I've tended to be a bit less generous except in the most obvious cases. Dennis Brown |  2¢ |  WER

yes, you were right to ask me; but I share your view on this particular group of socks, and there's no need to ask me further regarding their articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, thank you for your support and guidance in case of blank article. My intention is not bad to create the blank article but certainly to add good content in this. I will see on that Coolgama ( talk) 17:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Because of a disagreement about it, I started a strawpoll/rfc inquiring into the meaning of the phrase "consensus of the community" at WP:CLOSE. I then looked through the history to see when that phrase was added and discovered it was added by you in this . Perhaps you'd be willing to tell us what you meant?

See: Wikipedia_talk:Closing_discussions#RFC.2FStrawpoll:_Clarification_of_what_.22consensus_of_the_community.22_means.

Thanks! -- B2 C 23:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply

That was not the point of my addition in 2008, as I've explained there. I also discussed my current position on the issue you raised. If the situation I discuss is not what you intended to discuss, let me know, and i will comment further. I don't think a straw poll at this point is useful, and I suggest that instead it be changed to a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

And in fact, I see that the topic of discussion was the uniformity of article titles. Of all possible MOS issues, this is the one which needs to be adapted to the individual circumstances, and a rigid uniformity is impractical. To try to bring a discussion about general consensus on WP when the actual purpose is dissatisfaction about some article title decisions seems a misconceived use of limited editor resources. . The relevant principles are Let well enough alone and We are here to write an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I am delighted that you chose to review the submission, and I will continue to work on the page to strengthen it in the ways you suggested. The initial rejection was indeed a jolt but also an indication to me that I had not made the case, perhaps because I first met Myklestad in 1962 and have known and appreciated his work over these many years since; been too close to it maybe.

I have made a few suggestions for changes to the Wikipedia vibration page and see other ways in which I can suggest changes to other pages that may be helpful to others. So my commitment to the process is renewed. Many thanks.

Kllwiki ( talk) 03:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I did more work on the Myklestad biography and have a couple of questions. But before that thanks again, and again.

Most of his work was published and how he is best known is as N. O. Myklestad or sometimes Nils O. I used the full name for completeness. Should the page title be changed to N O Myklestad or an alias created? If so how?

Much of my information comes from a Univ Texas Arlington internal memorial document as well as resumes that I have. I was his next to last PhD student and inherited his library, so I have a lot of first-hand information, but no official bio information reference yet. He was a fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science so I can probably find something there or in a Who's Who but I have to go the Univ Library tomorrow to dig that out. Is the page OK till I get that sorted out?

I also have a report on the Spruce Goose in my office to get the specs on and maybe one on the B36. And I'd like to track down his other PhD students and add that info which I can probably do through dissertation abstracts.

Meanwhile take a look at the page if you have time and let me know how you think it's going.

Many thanks - Kent Lawrence

Kllwiki ( talk) 22:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply

1. We do not consider who's who and related publications a reliable source, because the subject of the article controls what is being written. They can however be used for the plain facts of birth, education and so on.
2. Has the U Texas document been published on the web, or elsewhere. If so, you can use it.
3. The notability of a scientist depends on the extent to which his work is cited. For publications in his period, there will not necessarily be complete information, but see what you can find in GoogleScholar/Scopus/Web of Knowledge.
4. Alternative notability depends on the books being used as standard works, with substantial reviews. Get information on editions and library holdings from Worldcat, and try to find reviews of them.
5. What is really needed, is awards he has been given, not just those named after him.
6. The way to make credirects is to make a page under the alternate form of the name, with the contents reading only #Redirect[[Nils Otto Myklestad]] DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

1. Understand. Google scholar gives a lot of evidence of the contribution of the Myklestad Method with over 200 references to its use from 1946 to 2013. I'll be out on travel for 10 days or so but will provide additional documentation on the other points when I return. Thanks for the constructive comments. See now that I really didn't do my homework before starting on this project.

Kllwiki ( talk) 01:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC) reply

hi DGG, I am working for Cheil Worldwide, an advertising agency located in South Korea. Yesterday, I found out the company information on Wiki was pretty outdated so made some changes. There are lots of other contents to be added and/or revised. However this morning I found out it was deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheil_Worldwide 17:51, 16 July 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Cheil Worldwide (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I don't understand what I was trying to umambiguously advertise or promote on the Wikipedia, but if you could let me know which sentences were such cases, that would be appreciated. Would you be able to retrieve the Cheil_Worldwide article please? If you'd like to have more conversation, you can reach me at soomee.moon at cheil.com (I am not familiar with Wikipedia system to be honest, so trying to learn about it step by step.) thanks, Soomee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsoomee ( talk • contribs)

I shall look at the other article you mentioned.[Moonsoomee has not mentioned any other article. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 15:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)] The problem about promotionalism with the one you wrote are first, the use of extravagantly promotional language: its "thousands of global employees create ideas that move brands, products and people from nearly 40 offices in 33 countries. ... delivers innovative communications strategies that drive business results ... creativity is world renown, ..." Second, the attempt to list the executives of all the divisions, and the very long list of services in the infobox, all of which are totally routine for an advertising agency. The article was nominated for deletion by a reliable editor, and any admin here would unquestionably have deleted it. Even were this rewritten, you have no usable references according to the WP:GNG. The AdAge material is not visible, though I will try to find a place to see it. (if it is widely available in subscribing libraries, it's usable, if it's more restrictive, it isn't--but it in any case needs a specific link or reference. and should give a sourced quotation. ) Everything else is a mention or a press release. If you are the largest agency in the country, it should be possible to write an article, but you need to first find good independent news and magazine sources that say it. reply

Our current best practice for people acting as press agents for a company is to submit the article through WP:Articles for creation, which gives people here a chance to review it. The rules about promotional articles, though, apply there also. Try rewriting it neutrally, with good sources, but do it there. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, When I tried the WP:Articles for creation, below message popped up. I am happy to do it through WP:Articles for creation but can I have the deleted article (Cheil_Worldwide) to make changes? I did not save the wording and it's a lot of work to start from scratch. -- Moonsoomee ( talk) 05:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply

A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 17:51, 16 July 2013 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Cheil Worldwide (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Another questions is the "good independent news and magazine sources" - some of the sources are available to paid subscribers only. Or, some are not in English. In such cases, should I just give up introducing such facts? -- Moonsoomee ( talk) 05:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC) reply

1. .I have moved it to User:Moonsoomee/Cheil Worldwide for improvements.
2. .References in any language are acceptable, but if not in English, translate at least the title.
3. .References behind paywalls are acceptable, if you have actually seen them.
4. .The main problem is not additional facts, it's rewriting to remove the advertising, especially from the first part. Try doing it without adjectives entirely. List only the principal line of business in the infobox, and only the CEO.
5. , Please check with me before moving it back. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG ! I wonder if Business & Decision wiki is not quite a promotional article. Do you think it could be proposed for deletion ? Thank's for your opinion. Best regards. 2A01:E35:243A:FAF0:216:CBFF:FEA7:C51A ( talk) 13:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I already tried this April at AfD. It was closed as keep. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm just going to retract all of it, delete what I wrote. If Wikipedia wants this, "Booby Piggy Bank" and this guy's article with references only to having done the world's most breast augmentations and a hatchet thrower as a hobby, which is in a blog, not a news article, nor AOL, that's fine. It was nominated for deletion once, and kept.

He might be the only practicing osteopath breast cosmetic surgeon with a listing on Wikipedia. So be it. I am not going to fight. I was outraged, but I give up now.

Aaron Swartz's "partner" was a woman, but that was a subject of contention too. The newspaper described her as "his girlfriend". What is wrong with having a girlfriend? Instead, user Mark Bernstein and others agreed that the gender "she" should not be used. Given that her name is not gender-specific, Taren, it is difficult to know what gender she is.

Similarly, for John Forbes Nash, PhD and Nobel prize winner, he had a younger sister and married a woman who graduated with a bachelor's degree in physics from MIT. None of that was in the article. I added it. I also read the talk page, which went into lengthy debate about whether or not he is homosexual. A lengthy discussion is currently on the talk page about whether anal or oral penetration is necessary to define homosexual activity. The fact of the matter, which I wrote in the talk page (it was promptly deleted, unlike anything else I have experienced here) was that John Nash had several relationships with different women, and was a handsome man, who loved his grandmother and parents. He was an excellent student, enjoyed school, and chose Princeton because he wanted to be nearer to his family in West Virginia. He wasn't some sort of misanthrope. He is happily remarried to his wife now, works, goes on trips with his colleagues at the Advanced Instiitute at Princeton, and takes nice photographs with beautiful women smiling at him and of himself interacting with his colleagues (all PhD mathematicians). But no, so many people who write on WP only want to portray successful men as alienated underachievers who didn't get along with their families, and were disliked because they were homosexual. I'm sorry, but everyone who is brilliant and accomplished cannot fit that profile. Nor are they Libertarian. The Noam Chomsky page describes HIM as Libertarian too!

In the article about women's breasts, actually bras, it cites at length a supposed medical condition that causes a young woman's developing breasts to increase massively almost over night. I checked all the sources cited, none of which said that any such condition was known to exist. Far be it from me to remove that. I would be afraid, lest, I sound outraged.

I'm sorry. You are a kind person. I am too agitated right now, am unemployed and scared, frayed nerves. Thank you for your help and support. I will be back, I am sure. I really want to do more with good Richard Baron Kahn of Cambridge Circle. He conceived of the Keynesian multiplier and has hardly anything in Wikipedia. I also like watching over William Janeway's BLP. I'm not sure why. Jared Cohen's BLP is ridiculous. Dave Winer's BLP is slowly evolving to converge on reality. He's such an egregiously grumpy, mean persona online.

I've been trying to write the entry for The Levant in Wikitravel. That's going to be a challenge! Somehow, I think a tourist guide for Israel, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan will be less contentious than writing about brassieres on Wikipedia. -- FeralOink ( talk) 19:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I have done my best to remove articles that amount to advertising, and this includes physicians. Those fields not covered by typical medical insurance in the US are those most likely to advertise, and this primarily amounts to those doing cosmetic plastic surgery, from any of the many specialties that try to include it within their scope of practice. I've made a point of checking from time to time, & many of the articles have been removed by now. The ones that aren't, are in two groups; the legitimate group is where there is the same notability as other physicians under WP:PROF, and the articles are purely descriptive--essentially, that amounts to a few researchers, and a few heads of services in major hospitals. The less legitimate group is where the people have done sufficient PR that there is substantial newspaper coverage of their activities--the problem here is the same as any local businessperson doing this, which is why I tend to be very restrictive about local notability. There's an intermediate class, not limited to cosmetic surgeons, where they are notable as authors for writing successful popular health books. Under our extremely liberal rules for NAUTHOR, there is often no way to remove the article (this does not apply here--the book is published by a firm publishing PR books, and is in a total of 6 libraries).

I now need to decide whether I will fix the article by omitting the nonsense, or AfD it myself. As I currently have a somewhat more deletionist approach to PR than the consensus, I use AfD when in doubt, and some of my AfDs do get rejected, which lets me see the current consensus. There is an attitude of some admins, that they will use speedy to remove articles they thing shouldn't be here, in the knowledge that the great majority won't be challenged. I well understand the temptation. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I have returned. Didn't take long, did it ;o) Please forgive me for my rant? I am sorry. I would like to give you a very large barn award, but you might find that embarrassing. It might also slow page load of your already heavily burdened talk page. If you want, you can feel free to erase some of my earlier diatribe. If you don't want to, that is okay too. It does not make me feel embarrassed at all, after re-reading it. If you keep it, I promise that I will not feel affronted and complain, loudly, as I did in a prior episode with a different WP personality (which I am now feeling some chagrin about... a little, maybe, maybe not). Thank you for your tolerance and patience with my indignation and high spirits. -- FeralOink ( talk) 14:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Integrationalism, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: article is about a book, not a person, so A7 does not apply. Thank you. JohnCD ( talk) 09:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

my error, of course; I can't imagine how I came to make it. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

A good example of the two-pairs-of-eyes effect. I apologise for templating you: I was using the CSDHelper script, and was surprised (and amused) when it told me who it had notified. JohnCD ( talk) 22:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I would much rather be templated, than not told of my errors. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, I think you should be aware of a request I made to to Smartse. Thanks! 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC) reply

yes, thanks. I didn't come on it by chance--I'm actively looking among recent accepted AfCs for promotional articles, because some of the reviewers seem to not recognize them--or possibly not even know that they shouldn't be accepted. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I appreciate you are doing that. You might send a friendly note to the AfC reviewer (time consuming, I know) explaining promotional language. Many of the AfC reviewers have taken heat recently for declining articles with reliable sources, so momentum may have swung the other direction. All the best, 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC) reply

It will be a little tricky, as it's a very experienced and generally trustworthy editor--and someone I know personally to be reliable. We all make mistakes. See a little above at Integrationalism for a really stupid one of my own. And I may perhaps be more sensitive to detecting PR, because most of what I do here these days is looking for it. Sometimes in fact I'm oversensitive, judging by consensus of good people at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know, following up on the PROD which you contested, I've started an AfD for Adverse health effects from lunar dust exposure - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adverse health effects from lunar dust exposure. -- W.  D.  Graham 10:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• thanks for letting me know; I commented there DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC) reply