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

I need your professional help, kindly, on the sources of the article Ibrahim Ben Ali. Please see /info/en/?search=Talk:Ibrahim_Ben_Ali and contribute both to the discussion and to the article itself. Thank you and regards. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I commented. Has possibilities for a decent article. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks. That was a real unpleasant mess. I'd like to think it's over but I doubt it. I see Shrike has added a discretionary sanctions notice, which might help. Dougweller ( talk) 17:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

DGG (with apologies to Doug) I'm going to revert your close though I suspect that the article will end up being kept. Your rationale for the close does not address the main concerns raised by me and by Nishidani (POV pushing COATRACK) - 2 of the 3 delete !votes, and I'm surprised by that. Also, avoiding passioned debate is not a reason for an early close - especially since the discussion so far hasn't really been disruptive. Anything concerning the Israel Palestine issue and Islamic intolerance is complex and we should not hastily try to shove stuff under the rug just to keep things pleasant. -- regentspark ( comment) 17:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Add. The note in the section below reassures me that I'm not wrong about this. Best w. -- regentspark ( comment) 17:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

RegentsPark, you are a participant in the discussion have no right to do this.See my comment below. I restored my close. I warn you about the arb Sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

No worries DGG, I suspect the article will be kept anyway. But, for the record, your close is, to put it politely, a poor decision. You've closed a complex discussion with quite a few delete !votes as SNOW. You haven't addressed the substantial delete reasons. And you're invoking IAR in anticipation of disruption rather with any actual disruption. -- regentspark ( comment) 17:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• I think it was unfortunate with an early close here. The topic is very sensitive and a thorough discussion very warranted, imo. For myself, I had been briefly involved at the talk page when the AfD started and was still considering if and how to vote. There may be more than me that have chosen to take some time to think. The article has been much expanded since the AfD started, but I think the quality of the expanision is somewhat; it currently for instance uses Bat Ye'or as a source; she is very controversial. The phrase, when used by Muslims, is a very hateful expression and can even be interpreted as genocidal. The existence of the phrase can then of course be used by others who have their own motivation for portraying Muslims or Arabs as evil. This doesn't mean that we shall censure it if it is truly notable for a stand-alone article; but it means in my opinion that we ought to have a very careful evaluation of notability and the quality of the sources. Regards, Iselilja ( talk) 17:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I fail to see why the motivation for using the phrase is relevant to notability. If the afd had continued, I think that a number of people would very soon have been blocked for violation of the arb remedy. I wanted to prevent it. there's agood suggestion on the article talk p. for rewording the lede paragraph. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

First of all; Snow close is after all an exeption and I simply don't see this as such a clear-cut case where it should be used. As the point of motivation for using the phrase: I think we should take especially care in considering notability for topics that typically is misused by hate groups etc. While not a totally good parallell, the article "Jews and communism" had some of the same considerations. There were a few sources on that topic; but it is more often a topic that is misused by Anti-Semittic persons, and in the end the article was deleted. The Saturday/Sunday article is not stable and hasn't found its form; many of the sources are mentions in passing of the phrase; one of the sources is as I mentioned Bat Ye'or, something many will consider similar to using knows Anti-Semittes as sources for a controversial articles about Jews (The barnstar you got below comes from the editor who inserted her as source) . Regards, Iselilja ( talk) 17:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• ( talk page stalker)I think that rational discussion would arrive at the conclusion that the phrase itself has enough provenance and notability to merit a Wikipedia article, but that the content needs to be very carefully worded and sourced. As such, may I suggest that any efforts that would have gone into the bureacratic black hole that the English Wikipedia can become (more often than not) instead be directed to sourcing and polishing the article to decent quality. -- Avi ( talk) 17:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

+1 to Avi, I believe the noteability of the articles topic is proven, and WP:Snowball was quotedcorrectly. Iits important to take care of wording and usage, which is more inside the arab christian community than in Muslim slogans. Serten ( talk) 17:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I certainly agree that a rewrite is indicated, as i said a little above. I'm going to leave further discussion to others. I mentioned this at ANB, as I am not experienced with some possible ramifications of this. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

DGG, I think your decision re this AfD was premature, and the note you left on my Talk page, according to the advice/request by user IZAK, is frustrating. I don't think I need to stress how sensitive this issue is. Again, we are having Israeli/Pro Israeli editors citing Israeli/Pro Israeli sources to claim the existence of an ARABIC Proverb and interpret it to mean Muslims will kill Christians after they are finished with JEWS. All this with no single material evidence. These same users come to vote en masse against the deletion of the article. How silly does that sound!!! There is a flagrant Conflict of interest here.

Those editors have ignored an important meaning for this phrase in English, used by the Church to refer to the torture and crucifixion of Jesus on Saturday and his peace on Sunday. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 20:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

User:عمرو بن كلثوم The phrase would be "After Friday comes Sunday" as the alleged crucifixion is agreed to have been on a Friday. Dougweller ( talk) 20:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

User:Dougweller, here you go. Another example was mentioned by user Nishidani. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 21:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The Christians call it Supersessionism, no prob. Serten ( talk) 01:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Everyone is agreed that it's an vicious ethnic/religious slur, apparently designed to evoke times even more violent than the present. I hope the revision of the article will clarify things further. FWIW, I warned other people also. Don't assume anything about my views on NE politics--you will probably be wrong. I do not edit in this area; I almost never even comment. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

	Der Gute-Laune-Orden
	I liked your sorta quick and dirty approach on the Saturday Night special ;) Serten ( talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

If you feel a dead horse is being beat feel free to leave me a note on my talk page. If you think my five point summary warrants address please post to ANI. I appreciate your input there and at FTNB. I also appreciate the work of OTRS agents. Best. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC) reply

The OTRS question is a very difficult one, involving the basic principles of WP editing, and I intend to pursue it. I've made a comment yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team, [1], and I will comment on the AN/I page. I think a major strategic mistake was made in the discussion, not distinguishing the actual edits made from the claim of privilege in making them. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I now consider this issue in the hands of those with more experience and knowledge and will now be mostly adding a "editor at large" perspective if I see fit/a need. I prefer to return to content development and research (while keeping an eye on EW and vandalism). On an unrelated note WP Library has given me access to Cochrane, BMJ, OUP and HighBeam if something would be helpful from one of these drop a note on my talk page. Thanks for your time and attention addressing the OTRS issue and for all your contributions to the project. Best. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I think a policy require COI disclosure is needed and have posted in a number of venues. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 05:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG. About your point on the entry Mohammad Ahmadvand, it should be considered that Mohammad Ahmadvand is a truly good expert in his field because he has had many publications as well as AN INNOVATION in his field. Furthermore, he is also a journalist and a writer which gives him a high stand among individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.255.85.69 ( talk) 22:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I assume, especially reading your comment there, you wanted to close this one as speedy keep, no as speedy delete! -- Cavarrone 08:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'm equally flummoxed. Thincat ( talk) 08:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

thanks, everyone; typed the wrong word. I think I've fixed it. DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG: The Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Institute of Nano Science and Technology (INST), Mohali submission was declined with the suggestion that it be merged with Indian Institute of Nano Science & Technology, and you have commented sort of in agreement. However, I am not sure that these two schools are related, and in any case it appears that the second one doesn't exist yet. They are in different parts of India. I am not sure about the notability of an "Institute" in the first place. What do you think? — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Indian Institute of Nano Science & Technology does not seem to actually exist. I listed it for PROD as "No evidence there is such an institute. Articles are about IISc, which has a Centre for Nano Scieience and Technology, established 2010;, whereas this was only planned in 2012. I'm not sure about Mohali either--I listed it for G13. I think I probably read this a little carelessly. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jauhar Abraham, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jauhar Abraham. DGG ( talk ) 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Clairefenton ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Holt Lloyd Lnternational ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know why this has been rejected and how I can improve it? Clairefenton ( talk) 07:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Avoid adjectives of praise, and don't talk about someone's "philosophy" to help vehicles run better and last longer. After all, it's the intent of every automobile product manufacturer. Don't talk about which brand name products it sells; don;t claim something like "true global reach for a company with 154 employees. Additionally, everything needs documentation from a third party published source, and from more than the company website. And instead of adding more advertising and immediately resubmitting, fix it first. Frankly though, I doubt that no matter how well you write it that the company has have what is required to show notability: the necessary references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements.

Even better,. what we really need is an article on the principal company, the UCI-FRAM group, which I think is undoubtedly notable, but not the minor subsidiaries. DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

You seem to have said that Draft:Tiptree sneeze needs to have more lasting interest to achieve notability. I did include the fact that the video went viral and resulted in the creation of parody videos (which also went viral). I'd like to have more input on what I should do. Thanks. Qxukhgiels ( talk) 13:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

you might wait to see if it lasts more than a year, and especially if someone writes about it in something more substantial than a newspaper or a TV news program. I'll put it in mainspace if you like, but I'll nominate it for deletion and I estimate it has less than a 50% chance of survival. Of course, afd is unpredictable. DGG ( talk ) 14:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jauhar Abraham, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jauhar Abraham. DGG ( talk ) 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG: Here's another professor. I trimmed this by about 90%, since his whole resume was copied into the page. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG
Thanks for moving the article back, As you moved it I was wondering if you could also move the talkpage as that's for some reason not been moved
Thanks again and have a nice day :)
Regards, – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) reply

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Niemann-Pick Disease Foundation has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Himatangi Beach has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Could you please clarify this edit? Thanks! Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

commentedd on its talk p.; if you disagree, it's ok if you revert. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Crash2341 ( talk · contribs)
  • User:Crash2341 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. I submitted an article for creation for Louis A. Lehr, Jr. It was declined on October 6, 2014 stating "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

My question is that all the materials provided were reliable published sources and nothing I created. Can you please explain why it was declined even though the sources I provided were independent, reliable sources, i.e. the Chicago Tribune?

Thank you in advance for your help. Crash2341 ( talk) 20:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

an article on him might be possible; but this one goes into great detail on his major trials, material which is duplicated almost word for word in the article on the law firm. I note that the article contains "The Illinois Bar Association News noted that during the proceedings Judge Becker expressed “an admiration and appreciation” for Lehr’s “marvelous sense of humor and light touch and for their leavening effect on this most contentious of all litigation.”" While true, this is not suitable for an encyclopedia,and including it shows considerable doubt about your purpose.

You seem to be editing almost exclusively articles connected with Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, often to insert there name as the attorney for some particular business. Most of these are excessive detail and have been reverted by various editors, including myself.

I call your attention to our rules on WP:COI, conflict of interest editing. If you are editing on behalf of the firm, either as an employee or a consultant, you must say so. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Identities: what sayest thou? -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

If it is indexed in Scopus (or another selective index), it's notable. the main thing to check for journals is that they didn't copy the usually rather meaningless aims and purpose paragraph from the web site--they did it OK here--they quoted key pts of it. I accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear Sir,

recently you deleted an article we have started to upload onto Wikipedia, for physician "Steven Z. Pavletic". It was marked as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" which should be fundamentally rewritten. We fully understand your position and would like to amend this text, so that it satisfies the minimum requirements for Wikipedia. Since this will be a similar page for "Steven Z. Pavletic", we are contacting you as instructed in order to receive feedback on how to proceed. Please let us know soon! Thank you and best regard, Darko Darko1983 ( talk) 15:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC) reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steven_Z._Pavletic&action=edit&redlink=1

Question for you: is "we" a single person, or a firm. if you're a firm, only individuals can edit here. In any case, if you are a paid editor editing on behalf of someone else, whether an employee of the individual or , it would seem, as an external consultant, you should not write the article in mainspace but use the WP:AFC creation process of writing in draft space first, and submitting it to see if it will be accepted.

A WP article is expected to be a plain description intended for the general public who might want to know about the subject. It must not be primarily addressed to prospective clients or supporters or employers. It therefore must not praise the person, or contain material supporting his cause or advocating support for the medical speciality in which he works. It must also have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. We already have an article on GHVD, and you need not repeat it.

In terms of notability, the criterion is WP:PROF. The fundamental criterion there is that he is an authority in his field. This is normally shown by citations to his work, and there are sufficient. Therefore, it will be possible for an acceptable article to be written. The question is, who should write it.It's a serious question whether a paid PR person can possible reorient their thinking to what is needed, as the purpose of WP is so very different from the usual purpose of PR. Only a PR person would even think of including the quote you used about him from Nola, and I cannot believe any individual would include it if they were writing the article.

Personally, I wish we had a rule that nobody could ever write about themselves, or their organization, or any person or organization who paid them to write anything. We don't have such a rule. But I sometimes have said in giving advice, "when the subject becomes sufficiently notable, someone else will write about it." Another administrator here tends to responds with a phrase like, "for decency's sake, please wait until someone else thinks he's important." DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear Sir,

thank you very much for your quick response. Indeed, your reply was helpful and we have significantly modified the article "Steven Z. Pavletic", which will be posted using the WP:AFC creation process of writing in draft space first - thank you for drawing my attention to this.

To answer your question, I do not represent a firm, but am a private citizen who volunteered to help post this text written by another colleague - not Steven Z. Pavletic!

In any case, we assure you that that the prior and the modified version of the text, in particular, has been drafted objectively and in good faith, and we hope that it is now more in the "spirit" of what you are looking for.

I look forward to your feedback on the latest version of this text.

Thank you and best regards, Darko Kerić — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko1983 ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi! Do I really have to go through a deletion nomination again after merely two weeks simply because a user recreated it without any explanation whatsoever? What is the point of nominations for deletion if anyone can create a new account to reverse the outcome of the discussion on a whim? Surtsicna ( talk) 19:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I added a reference myself. I see from the other WPs there are other references also. Adding a ref to an unreferenced article is a sufficiently major change to require another AfD. The fairest thing to do is to add the available material first, and then nominate. At that point, I intend to make a keep argument. The outcome will depend, as usual, on who chooses to show up there-- I see none of our editors with actual competence in the area showed up, and I seemed to have missed it. I intend to work on it further, and if I dod not getthere within he next week or two, I'll move it to draft space. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I see. So, you added an unreliable, self-published source ( [2]) that merely establishes that she existed, and that overrides the consensus reached after a week long discussion? And, to be fair, an editor "with actual competence in the area" nominated the article for deletion. The woman's existence alone does not make her notable. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC) reply

we have had many decisions that the spouse of a head of state is notable. Since even her real existence was challenged in the first discussion, proving it is getting somewhere.Even someone who supported delete admitted that information could be found. But as I don't want to fight about it, I've moved it into drafts until I do the work. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Surely you are aware that her husband was not a head of state, right? Her father and her father-in-law were also not heads of state. Anyway, I am not aware of anyone questioning her existence. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel in that period was a sovereign prince the dependence of such princes on the Holy Roman Empire was purely nominal. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

But her husband was not Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel. He was not a sovereign prince, not a head of state. Neither was her father, for that matter. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

right. Her father was the Landgrave. We usually keep immmediate family also. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

No, he was not. Her father was not the landgrave. He was a landgrave, meaning that he was not head of state, head of the family or head of anything, really. Forgive me, but I have to wonder if you even took a look at the articles about her father and husband. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• If I may chime in here; in my experience the community has generally supported as notable members of prominent royal and aristocratic families, provided that there are sufficient sources to satisfy V. It's not explicitly laid out in GNG or BIO but I do think that there is a general consensus to that end. Of course there have been and will be exceptions. As an example, if available material is unlikely to support anything larger than a stub often the consensus will be to merge whatever there is into one or more related articles. All of which said, I didn't see the article or the AfD so I can't comment on this one specifically. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• ( talk page stalker) it's now at Draft:Princess Marie Luise Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel. JohnCD ( talk) 17:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Thanks. A quick glance suggests that this is someone who merits an article. The question is sourcing. Normally websites are pretty dicey when it comes to WP:RS but this one actually cites its source, "The Book of Kings: A Royal Genealogy." The book (really three volumes) looks like it should pass RS. Another source would be ideal, but right now I'd call this a weak keep. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Too weak, in my opinion. "The Book of Kings: A Royal Genealogy" does not establish this woman's encyclopedic notability. It merely proves that she existed, that she had parents, a husband and children. She is hardly more notable than my 19th-century ancestresses. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• As I noted in my initial comment above, there seems to be something of a consensus that members of royal and prominent noble houses are usually notable. The only issues to my mind are WP:V and whether or not there is enough to build something beyond a stub. I'd really like another source but the one that exists is, I think, minimally adequate. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Where exactly was this consensus reached? The consensus in this case appears to have been in favour of deletion. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• It's been my observation based on the admittedly few AFDs that involve members of royal houses. Taking a look at the AfD in question here, the article appears to have been deleted based on the nomination plus one Delete !vote. I'm not sure I would call that a strong verdict. Were the relevant projects pinged? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, (not the original editor who suggested Porteus Kiosk as its own article, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Porteus_Kiosk_%28operating_system%29 )

Since he has little time and believes me better than him in wikipedia syntax and stuff, the original author asked me to merge the Porteus Kiosk draft into the existing Porteus article. (Like it is said that it should be done so on the draft page itself)

One issue I have here: Porteus Kiosk is not based on Slackware/current like regular Porteus is, but is based on Gentoo (not Slackware) has different website, initial release date, etc ... So, can an OS info box used in a sub section, or can that OS info box only used once on a page?

If the OS info box can not used for the sub-section of the Porteus article, how else can I include the changed info like based on Gentoo, initial release date and automated "XX months ago" functionality? -- Rava77 ( talk) 20:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Rava,just inset the text, don't worry about the infobox; there is no rule against using more than one infobox in an article, but I'm not sure to handle this particular situation DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Equafy was deleted because of G11. Sslavov ( talk) Hello, can you point me to the topic that was ads but not facts about the company so this can be fixed? Can you also give me a copy of the deleted page so I can start from there. I think it was only company facts and not that long text. Sslavov ( talk) 08:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Sslavov reply

First of all, you need to show that the company is notable with references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Every source you used was just its own website, or a product announcement. Awxcond, whar yy wrote was not a neutral description of the program, but a list of its advantages. e.g. "Equafy aims to get rid of the manual testing across browsers." . That's advertising, pure and simple, and cannot be done here.

The product has apparently just been introduced. You will need to wair for substantial third party product reviews to have a chance . DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dancing Times magazine has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, DGG. This article makes claims of notability, but I don't find much on the web. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

bad machine translation from the Russian WP article ru:Синягин, Юрий Викторович; not worth rewriting, tho probably notable. And I have a bias against any bio which lists inclusion in the publications of International Biographical Centre especially when they claim it is published by Cambridge University. .

==article==: Hi DGG, please provide me the content and copy of the deleted Article - 'Balkrishna' on my email address - swabhimaanishalini@gmail.com. Shaliniaggrawal ( talk) 07:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC) reply

One more distinguished professor for you, DGG. I added a Google Scholar Report, which is rather low. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Basic cleanup steps for professors (and much of it applies to all bios):

1. Remove all "Professor", "Prof.", "Doctor" and "Dr.", Ph.D, or M.D except in the lede sentence or as actual titles of positions or degrees. For every use of first name alone, substitute the last name. For every use of full first and last name, substitute the last name, except in the lede sentence or if needed to avoid confusion.
2. Then, for every use of the name more than once a paragraph at the most, substitute "he" "she" or the equivalent.
3. remove all adjectives of praise: famous, renowned, prestigious, world-wide, transformative, seminal, ground-breaking, etc. referring to either people or institutions or discoveries; even "well-known". In all of these, nothing needs to be substituted.
4. Consider replacing "expert" with "specialist". Replace "across" with "in" or, if documented, "throughhout" Remove all similar jargon. "
5. "best-selling" etc. needs to be justified by a third party quotation. Just remove all these throughout the entire article, or add a {{Fact}} "First" similarly needs a third party source.
6. Move the most important factor of notability to the very first phrase of the first sentence where nobody can miss it: not "A.B., an expert in something, who has taught at Wherever for 23 years, is the Distinguished Professor of" , to "X, the Distinguished Professor of ... at Wherever, is a specialist in something....
7. Remove complicated sentences of birth place and date to the section of biography. The lede sentence should just have the dates, eg: "(born 1945)"
8. If they have written books and work in the humanities or history or Law, or any field where books are the main factor of notability, remove journal article section entirely. If there's a section on conferences, etc., remove it in all cases.
9. The list of degrees received and dates is critical information. It goes in a section labeled ==Biography==, right after the lede paragraph. If you find it at the end, the article was unmistakably written by a press agent, and will need careful checking for copyvio.
10. In fact, the likelihood of copyvio is so great that I usually prefer to rearrange or alter most of the text.
11. Books need to be sourced to Worldcat, not Amazon or the publisher. Bio facts are sourced to the person's official page at the university. These should all be formatted as references, so there will be a conventional reference list DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) Just noticed this useful list. One comment (in case you've got this chunk of text ready to paste in elsewhere in future): in point 7, about dates, I think the standard format for the lead sentence is "(born 1948)" not "(b. 1948)". Your point 6, about moving the main claim to notability to the very start of the article, is really important - so many poor articles start by telling you the subject's parentage or other irrelevancies so that you have to plod through a lot of verbiage to find any assertion of notability. Pam D 14:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

fixed, though perhaps even just the date is clear enough for everybody. thanks. (as for 7, press agents writing an academic cv tend not to realise what we consider the key factors. Hidden in the last paragraph among society memberships, will sometimes be "National Academy of Sciences". DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I hope that I didn't cause an edit conflict. Bearian ( talk) 20:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

no, but the ed. has been restoring some of the detailed material about his parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, which I removed once more. But I discovered hidden in the article what we do consider clear evidence for notability: he was President of the State Bar Assn. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, I've added a bunch more sources (all IMO credible) to the Graeme Shimmin article that you previously marked as 'probably not notable', so I wonder if you could review it to see if you feel it is now acceptably notable and if not what else might need adding? Shimbo ( talk) 22:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I consider some of the sources borderline for notability: Being shortlisted for an award is not much of an honour with only a few exceptions, and having an article reprinted in the Huff Post does not in my opinion even contribute to notability; I have always considered listing who a person chooses to say has been the influences on him as mainly namedropping. The article might be stronger without such material. Notability would need to be determined at afd: If I thought he was clearly not notable, I would have brought the afd. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear User DGG,

I am the editor who created the Nixie (wearable drone) article, which has later been moved to Nixie drone. There were 2 other non-bot users who contributed content to the article. After editing Wikipedia for 6 years, I never encountered speedy deletion of an article this way. I made every effort to write it in neutral language, cite every statement, and adhere to pillars of Wikipedia. You stated that the article is "clear and unambiguous advertisement", without stating the reason what in the article is considered advertisement. I believe that this article has important content that would be of interest to the public, which was the original reason why I created it. Would it be possible to discuss the future of this article?

Thank you in advance for considering this, ~Zina~ ( talk) 00:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

What I decided to do is to move it to Draft:Nixie drone I agree that there is potential for an article, though as I explain below it might be perhaps be better to wait until there is an actual product. The promotional elements include the use of irrelevant bio details of the inventors, and the repeated emphasis of the key selling points. Try rewriting it in a much more objective encyclopedic less excited tone, avoiding italics, and let me know; if I think it has a chance I will move it back to mainspace. I or anyone may still nominate it for deletion via WP:AFD, and the community will decide. My experience is that the community is much more likely to decide to keep it if it is an actual product--even if only a prototype, not just a concept, so you might want to wait till then. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

User DGG - Thanks for restoring the Nixie drone article as a draft. I will try to make the changes you suggested. The reason why I believe this drone is notable is not because it is a product (which it is not), but rather an invention that may change the way drones are used for civilian purposes, and possibly the way drones are perceived by the public. I think this was the reason why Wired and Forbes, among others, wrote about it, perhaps supporting its notability. If you think I should be making this clear, please do let me know. ~Zina~ ( talk) 16:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Winning the Intel competition might improve its chances, but in general vaporware has a very hard time achieving notability. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

User Dodger - As I mentioned above, I created this article, because this is an invention with the potential to change civilian use and perception of drones. The invention has been highlighted by more than 10 media sources, including high-profile publishers, supporting public interest in this invention. Even though I wish this team the best in the competition, I am not sure how winning or not winning a competition may disqualify an invention from existence. I am a scientist in a different field, but can easily appreciate it significance - sufficiently to put a few days into writing an article about it (with 2 other non-bot users contributing). I will add a few more references to the article to support its significance, but there are so many that I don't think I can track down all of them. Please, give me a few days to do that. ~Zina~ ( talk) 16:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

~Zina~ - Winning such an award would inevitably generate press interest, and that is what it needs to pass Notability. It's not the winning itself, it's the consequent publicity that makes the difference. Of course having an actual product on the market would also help. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 06:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC) reply

now that it's in Draft space, you have a full 6 months. It will be very much more notable if there's something to show for it, so you might be well advised to take the time, rather than have to deal with the otherwise inevitable attempts to delete the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks David and Roger for your comments. I'll to fix this article earlier than 6 months from now. ~Zina~ ( talk) 03:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

David, I saw that you removed the BLPPROD here, but perhaps you should have a second look. As far as I can see, there are no acceptable references. The links to "articles" are to articles published by Olivier himself. The only external link that is not directly edited by him (but, I assume, still set up by him) is a GScholar profile, which indicates zero citations (I admit never having seen something like that). Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm re-checking it DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG, I can see how this page may not have been suitable yet under A7 as I had failed to include the the racing results on a Scottish and British level for such an institution. However, I do believe that this organisation is notable in its own right and there are sources which I failed to include on the page that would prove so. Is it possible to re-acquire the page, set it up as a draft of mine and then re-submit it once the appropriate changes have been made? Sincerely, Standsaint ( talk) 09:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Standsaint, I have moved the content to Draft:University of St Andrews Boat Club. You have 6 months to improve it sufficiently \. The problem is not just the failure to give competitive results. The problem is the failure to give any indication that the club is of concern to anyone outside the university. The web site indicates a Scottish Universities championship. If this has been received substantial treatment in newspapers of general interest, there might be the possibility of an article. The basic need is for references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements or local sources. If you have them, edit that page to show them and let me know, and if I think it has a reasonable chance of being found notable by the community according to WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS I will move it back to mainspace, and list it for a community decision; if I think it's fairly certain to be OK I will just move it, but anyone else can still list it for a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, you recently approved articles like Jens Zimmermann and Jeroen Dewulf via AfC, which is fine, but you left the "finishing review" headers on several and it looks like you haven't been editing them recently - I would pull the headers myself but I'm not that bold. Was just wondering if you want them removed or if you're still working on the articles. -- TKK! bark with me! 14:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

thanks; I've dealt with it. Sometimes the macro does not seem to finish. I'm not sure why. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Andrew Selby (2) has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Actions like that make it very discouraging for new editors (and established editors like myself) to want to bother trying to write a short stub pages. A notability tag would have been more appropriate. If you really thought it needed deletion then Afd would allow other users to look at it and give it a chance for improvement. CSD kills any chance for improvement. Please see my user page and views on editing.~ Technophant ( talk) 00:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Atthetime I tagged it , there were 3 refs all to its own web site. I suggest that a good way to discourage speedies is to always have one third party ref from the start. I know it isn;t strictly required, but it certainly helps in practice. Given the current flood of promotional editing, even normally inclusionist eds. like me are in a very defensive mode of operation. But I apologize for not checking your contributions and realizing you would improve it. (I removed the tag) DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Ok. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Do you still want the notability template? If not needed then please remove it (it doesn't look right for creator to remove it, even though I placed it).~ Technophant ( talk) 00:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

As for notability, I'm not convinced The Fixis a sufficiently discriminating source--it seems to cover all possible groups. A ref from general media would help. As a less critical issue, I'm concerned at the listing of too many peripheral see also's--I've seen it a lot as a promotional technique to increase the apparent xrefs. I consider it perfectly OK to remove a tag when you think you've fixed the problem; what isn't legit would be to remove it again if someone puts it back. Justm y advice. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I couldn't find a news source. I think that the accepted S-groups (as are probably well-established 12-step groups) are notable as a group, like schools are because they impact the lives of thousands of people. I just copy and pasted the See Also's from the SA page.~ Technophant ( talk) 01:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

If they are notable as a group, perhaps there should be an article covering them all, rather than individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

They are different groups with different approaches, members, and literature. Combining into one article would be confusing. I do see your point, for example if I started a group "Nose Pickers Anonymous" and had a website and regular meetings out of my living room that wouldn't qualify for an article. There do needs to be independant coverage. You weren't wrong for doing what you did, but perhaps you could have researched the group more or asked me to provide more sources.~ Technophant ( talk) 00:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I read the article in The Fix, and I found it clarified matters considerably by comparing the groups--sometimes such comparisons are the clearest way of dealing with groups of overlapping interest--even if some of them are actively hostile to each other. There is in any case room for a general article on the subject. (or do we already have one perhaps under some title.)? DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Do you really think this is A7 case? Quick search shows many sources and Norwegian WP has two articles, no:Holta Invest AS and no:Kjetil Holta, about this topic. As far as I can understand the Norwegian language, the latter of those has been there over 5 years without being challenged. jni  ^(delete) _{...just not interested} 12:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

you are right. I forgot to check the national WP. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I have left the tag in case another admin thinks differently, but I am not happy to use WP:CSD#G2 test page to delete a page like this, which though an obvious no-hoper was submitted in good faith. Unless we can agree a speedy on the lines of "Draft page with no hope of ever becoming encyclopedic", I think things like this should just be left to moulder until G13 sweeps them up after six months. JohnCD ( talk) 17:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I kinda agree with JohnCD. I deleted few of DGG's G2 nominated drafts but skipped several, some of which were far more developed than the hopeless Draft:Joe weller. I'd avoid tagging as G2 in draft space, unless it is really just editing experiments with zero information content. jni  ^(delete) _{...just not interested} 18:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

RHaworth deleted it, but though I will on rare occasions use IAR at speedy, I know he is considerably more ready than I or almost any of us are to do so, so his view and mine about this particular case may not be representative of consensus. I have for many years sometimes used G2 for situations of this sort in mainspace rather than A7, to avoid sounding insulting about people who are just playing or don't understand WP, and I carried it over to this one. I don't want to call it vandalism. There is of course an alternative to avoid waiting 6 months, which is to use MfD. I'm trying to think of a way of wording it for speedy, possibly limited to BLP.

I'm trying to experiment a little with the various possible cases of Draft space articles--our way of handling them is not good, and I am not yet able to propose a comprehensive alternative--except to put everything in main space automatically--but we would still need some way of providing a place for people who need time in good faith to develop an article and would benefit from the potential input of having it on-wiki. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, RHaworth is a master of skillfully applying IAR to speedy deletion we all less experienced article deletioners should learn from and hope to emulate :) I see the problems you are dealing with and need for a polite not-bite-newcomers solution. G2+IAR is indeed better than G3 here. Maybe one solution could be to change the new CSD U5 to cover any "hopeless autobiography or userpage in wrong location" cases in AfC-domain as well? jni  ^(delete) _{...just not interested} 19:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

VQuakr ( talk) 18:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• MaitriSF ( talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Maitri Compassionate Care ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi DGG,

Thanks for taking the time to review Maitri Compassionate Care's submitted article. I'm a volunteer who is helping write the content for the Wiki article and maintain the article as needed. I'd greatly appreciate some detailed feedback on our submission so that my next round of edits achieves the necessary changes.

I modeled the first draft of Maitri's article on a few different published articles, including the one for Glide Memorial Church, another nonprofit organization here in SF. Could you give me specific feedback as to which sections/sentences of our submission could be considered advertorial from Wiki's perspective? In comparison to Glide's page the content looks fine to me, but of course we're happy to make deletions as needed to get the article published. Please suggest specific deletions.

Secondly are the sources, which include four published books, a newspaper article, and a blog entry that contains text from an upcoming book about Maitri. I believe these sources should be considered independent, reliable, and appropriate sources, as they were not written by Maitri or anyone who works for/at Maitri. The one exception might be the blog about Ken Ireland's upcoming book; he was Maitri's Executive Director from 1989-1994. But the rest of the sources seem appropriate--please let me know if you disagree.

Again, thanks for your review of our article and for sharing your Wiki expertise. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards, Christina Raymond for User MaitriSF MaitriSF ( talk) 21:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Regardless of the sourcing, the article has to be written like a neutral dispassionate encyclopedia article, and not like ann appeal addressed to supporters (or prospective clients). Details such as the fees and the organizations supporting it and its notable patients are inappropriate; they belong in your web site and your web site only. Information about the background of the AIDS epidemic is covered elsewhere in WP. Also, the articles will be stronger without the reliance on press releases, incidental notices, and a single book. When you have improved the article to address the problems, resubmit the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG: I added a Google Scholar report and removed an essay-like discussion of his work. — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

thanks; I did some further clarification. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm puzzled by one change you made to Janet Zollinger Giele. You deleted all scholarly papers from the list of her works with the breathtakingly sweeping edit summary "we do not include articles." Is there a Wikipedia policy / guideline / discussion to that effect? I couldn't find one, but my search skills may not be good enough.

Wikipedia:Notability (academics) specifically mentions an academic's scholarly articles. It would be strange if they shouldn't be listed in the article when they can form part of the body of work that establishes notability. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works encourages complete lists of works. And featured articles about academics often include articles in lists of works ( Ben Gascoigne, Marcus Ward Lyon, Jr., Barbara McClintock, Gerard K. O'Neill, List of works by Joseph Priestley (broken out presumably because of length), and Alfred Russel Wallace, to name a few). How does that jibe with your experience? Worldbruce ( talk) 21:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I hadn't finished my revisions of the article; I normally revise an article over a series of days to have a chance to think about what I'm doing. I think some of the material in the article is excessive--I would normally turn the references from the book reviews into footnotes and considerably shorten the amount that is quoted. I was even before you wrote considering adding back some of the papers--I often realize after a bit that I've curt too much in the first pass. If you want to add them now, go ahead & I'll look at them more carefully.

I have always considered that MOS lists of works is primarily concerned about literary authors. My general practice is that for most academics in fields where the notability depends primarily on published books, I just list the books; for those in fields where notability depends primarily on papers, I list the 3 or 4 most cited papers (or those otherwise the most important) & any books. Most other editors here specializing in academic bios do similarly. That doesn't prove we're right, of course.

More generally, the depth of coverage of an article should be proportional to the importance of the subject. This of course is a matter of judgment. Giele is a very important sociologist, but I don't think she could really be classified as world-famous in the sense of being well-known to people outside the subject. At the extreme, consider making excessively detailed articles about minor subject as promotionalism, and people who insist on keeping such details have sometimes had their articles deleted at afd.

For the other articles you mention, I think some of the lists a little excessive, and in some cases not well chosen. But some of the people, like McClintock and Wallace, are actually world-famous.

With respect to separate articles for scientists: Priestley is not only a scientist, and a list of works for him as a separate article might be a justified exception, & I suppose if it makes sense for his minor religious and political works, his scientific ones should be included also. The lists for Frank Macfarlane Burnet, Glenn T. Seaborg, and Thomas Hunt Morgan include books only. I don't see that we have such an article for Einstein or Newton; it would be justified for them if anyone. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I wouldn't have been so taken aback if the edit and summary hadn't been so broad. I won't second guess you as your work is in progress. It's certainly possible that the selected articles section needed to be more selective. It may even be the case for Giele that her books are a sufficient description of her published works. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something, and that Wikipedia does include an academic's articles (at least in some cases and to some degree). Worldbruce ( talk) 07:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, talk page stalker here. Funny you should be asked this question; a similar one was put to me a little earlier. We seem to agree. I do have some qualms about this, though: while I think that a list of articles is unnecessary, for photographers I happily leave (and even create) lists of (mostly minor) exhibitions. Why the latter but not the former? (Do I perhaps have a double standard here?) -- Hoary ( talk) 09:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Georges Abrial: No sources here. No sources in French Wikipedia. Regards. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 19:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It should be extremely easy to add sources, and I see there are some at the ruWP article DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• I hope you'll take another look. I have taken a look at your edits over the last couple of days, and begin to see the problem you face: an avalanche of self-promotion, promotion of pet causes in the shape of new articles. Due to your nomination for deletion, I have added to the article I hope that you will now consider this article suitable on the grounds that the killing has continued to form part of the political conversation over 6 decades. ShulMaven ( talk) 20:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Good job of expansion. See the afd. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Point taken. ShulMaven ( talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Is this legitimate and/or conducive to collaboration within an encyclopedia? — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 21:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I was going to ask the same thing, and I'm surprised we didn't get an edit conflict. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 22:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Here's the long version. — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 23:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

after the nom. withdraws the afd, it is pointy to insist on having such a tag . I removed it and put a note on the eds. talk p. I suggest that keeping the long version around may be somewhat pointy, and will help resolve things. Perhaps you might want to blank it. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Done, and thank you. — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 00:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Come to think of it, I've saved said long version offline; feel free to delete it. Meantime, I voted at the AfD to keep and you closed it as keep; this counts as a nom withdrawal? — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 00:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

If after you nominate an article you vote to keep, it certainly does count as a withdrawal. See the item just above, where I did exactly that myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

( ←) Ah, okay; I had intentionally waited until the last moment to vote because I wanted the votes to stand and be counted, whatever the result; withdrawal was not my intent. Still, if that's the norm, so be it, and my thanks for your attention. — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 00:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I see what the problem is: you have to say at the start that it is purely a technical nomination, not an article that you yourself want deleted. And the usual way, is that when you do that, you do not !vote further. It confuses things to nominate for afd when what you're really looking for is a keep. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Yeah, first-timer in the process, and my research in advance came up with virtually nothing on point. If I had to guess, though, it's unlikely to happen again ... ;) — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 02:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

General advice, repeated here so it will be visible:

Please don't be deterred by the bureaucracy here. This is after all a very large enterprise, with thousand of people working independently at the same time with almost no formal coordination, almost no supervision, and very little training. to help deal with it, a number of formal conventions have been established. Unfortunately, the sort of people that like to work here are exactly the sort of people who are not very skilled at drawing up formal conventions or procedures, and the net result is a mass of partially contradictory instructions and rules, some important, some not; some enforced, some not. The response to a rule that has proven impractical is usually to add several supplementary rules, rather that to revise the original, and after 11 years, it produces quite a jumble.

Some of us find it fun to manipulate the rules to get a reasonable result. But the true purpose of working here is to build an encyclopedia, and I will normally try to get to a reasonable result as directly as possible. Some people though insist on their interpretation of the rules regardless of the result, and I have also become rather experienced at countering them in their own frame of reference when necessary. As I'm pretty much an inclusionist on most topics, I tend to concentrate at AfD and AfC.

My advice is to concentrate on providing good sourced articles. If you want to learn process, don;t be afraid of making errors. There's no other way to do it, because you need to learn not the letter or the rules, but the way we use the and the accepted boundaries. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Kilroy was here — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Why is everyone so he'll bent on deleting my article? He's a major figure in the Bay Area turning Fremont into a big manufacturing hub. I looked through the other articles people want deleted and most of them a freaking nowhere near as important a subject. From the moment I posted the article one after another user tried to delete it for freaking technicalities. Look at the drafts in the past and see how I being shafted. I thought Wikipedia was a repository of knowledge rather than 4chan without the dirty pictures. You can sense my frustration. Why bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burtonburtonburton ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Since people are allowed to lie in trying to bring others down. Is that how it works here? reply

Just as anyone can contribute to articles here, anyone can comment. In a system such as ours', it's inevitable that decisions will always be consistent or rational. The only alternative is a system where some people have ultimate authority over content, as in conventionally edited material; WP is deliberately intended to be just the opposite, as an experiment to see how good an collectively written encyclopedia can be created in an open manner. To work here successfully,m it is necessary to understand thatone will not always get things the way one wants them--no matter how right one may be.

In our system, it helps very much if you react as dispassionately as possible. We are, after all, not here to promote the importance of any particular city--we're not hereto promote anything. What you can do best to help the article is to add material with references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources about him, not press releases or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG,

Thanks a bunch for your critique of the IEG proposal. I've put some replies at meta:Grants talk:IEG/Automated Notability Detection#Supporting human notability judgements. Really happy to discuss further. Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 07:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Eyes needed please on Gernatt Family of Companies and Talk:Gernatt Family of Companies. An editor has taken the time to trim some of the bloat of the article, and what's left is not very notable. Another editor has brought up the notability issue on the Talk page, but the discussion has been aggressively and voluminously hijacked by the article's creator. Could you take a look and see if a notability tag (or an AfD) is in order? Thank you. Softlavender ( talk) 22:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I took a look. The way to decide notability is to bring an AfD and see what the consensus is. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

If you're interested, there's a summary at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez. Allegedly paid writing. Widefox; talk 11:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I've done what seems to be needed. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that saved some cat and mouse with contested PRODs and taking each to AfD. The advert has been online over four years, and the articles survived for years. Possible to deincentivise the market by actively finding adverts and feeding that into WP? Similar to copyvio. Widefox; talk 09:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

One new account, and another IP. Widefox; talk 11:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I believe there are one or two people who try to keep track of advertisements. It's probably not the sort of activity which should be organized on-wiki. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Warm feeling to know that. There's a new account, and another IP. Widefox; talk 08:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

Etan J. Tal^{( talk)} 13:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello again, DGG. I see that you commented on this submission. I added some book reviews and replaced a primary source. Is it acceptable yet? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

working on it. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Calumet & Arizona Mining Company has become eligible for G13. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

Thanks, really, for your longterm solid participation in wikipedia, including in generally under-appreciated support area contributions. I found myself "thanking" you for a recent AFC action, and i realized i still appreciate your really decent comment in an AFD long ago. Your comment was positive about a topic that I had worked on, but especially struck me as professional and was helpful in allowing me to see that Wikipedia can be a decent place. That editorial processes can work and have reason prevail, even amidst the crazy randomness of an environment where "anyone can edit". That was in 2007 when i was just getting started, and it made a difference. Thanks! -- do ncr am 14:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

This article title that has been redirected, [3], seems a BLP vio to me. Labeling this fellow an Ebola patient? How can I go about asking that this be deleted outright? This shouldn't be a redirect, in my view. SW3 5DL ( talk) 14:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

From a bystander, to SW3 5DL: DGG's close of the AFD as "redirect", given numerous !votes for that, seems the only reasonable expression of consensus, per DGG's principles expressed on DGG userpage. I suspect DGG agrees it should not be a redirect, and I think most editors in a proper wp:RFD process to discuss it would agree, too. Please follow WP:RFD#HOWTO to start the proper formal process to have the redirect deleted. Hope this helps. -- do ncr am 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

doncram, Ah, much obliged. This being WP, I knew there had to some road to a second look. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 15:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

DGG, Back again. I had a second thought about the redirect. If the redirect is simply deleted, someone might come along and recreate another page. Would it be possible to delete the William Pooley Ebola patient bit, and then create William Pooley (UK nurse) and redirect that to the West Africa article? That respects the AfD decision, because the decision was about him, not about his patient status. But also solves the BLP issue. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

There is no difficulty in changing the title of a redirect, or the article to which it points. It just requires consensus somewhere. There is also no difficulty in protecting or semi-protecting a redirect--once there is consensus, just ask me or any admin. To instead have the redirect deleted, use RfD. If it is deleted, it can be protected against re-creation if there is consensus to do so. My closing was worded to leave all of these options open, but I'd rather not get involved in figuring out what is best to do, tho I will enforce the decision if asked. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Okay, so would I post a RM discussion, or an AfD, or do I ask at RfD? I want to get the forum right. Which would be most efficient? I've not done this before. SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

If you want the redirect deleted, go to RfD. If you want it moved, since it is likely to be controversial, use the RM process. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I have yet to ever receive an inquiry about a musician/band that was actually notable. However, this one is the subject of some profile stories in the San Francisco Chronicle, The Press Democrat and is the subject of the cover story of a native american magazine (the musicians are native american).

There's probably enough sources to pass WP:V, however the sources are largely local to California and without much of a concrete claim to notability except "drawing crowds" of tens of thousands, which I guess is probably pretty good for a Blues band. I'm not really that familiar with these kinds of articles and I figured in your counter-COI/fanboy work you have probably become quite familiar with band pages, so I have come seeking your input RE notability. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

the two subjects I do not attempt to work on are popular music, and sports unless obvious. I know so little I might miss important things. But check Native American Music Awards, where I see very few of the winners have WP articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Cool I pinged user:OrangeMike, who I vaguely remember being involved in some AfD discussions about an article about a band and may have some familiarity with our norms in this area. On a side-note, does it require an admin to delete a user page that is being used as a web-host? [4] or can I just blank the page myself? Also related to my COI work, or at least, the pro-bono work I do related to my COI work. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

There is considerable tolerance for user pages. Unless it is blatant advertising, and the page you mention does not strike me as such, the safest course is MfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Why was the page for Priya Adivarekar deleted? There's been plenty of references and it took a lot of time and effort to create the page. If there's any chance, do you think you can please restore the page along with the information? Thank you. - BlueMario1016 ( talk) 15:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Please see the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Adivarekar " this girl does deserve this space". "A young age to achieve all of this" "no harm in keeping" "quite popular on social media" , "DESERVES TO STAY" are none of them acceptable reasons for keeping. On the other hand, " no significant coverage in independent sources ", " Doesn't pass WP:BASIC," "fails WP:NACTOR", "Dubbed for some ... movies does not qualify one to be listed in biaography section." are all of them good reasons for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. My job as an admin is to close on the basis of the consensus of relevant arguments. I have no personal opinion, but considering the discussion, no other close was possible.

In practice, it is my experience having seen many years of discussions at AfD, that it is relatively difficult for an article on someone who is a voice actor to be accepted--it usually take a major personal prize at a national level, not merely nominations. Looking at List of Indian dubbing artists, I think that most of those listed there who are known only for this role would probably not be kept if challenged at AfD. As for prominence in social media, we have almost never accepted that as notability, unless there is something substantial as the reason for it.

My advice would be to wait until there is a major prize, or at least very substantial coverage in multiple reputable magazine or newspaper sources. Almost none of the ones in the article would meet our guidelines at WP:Reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

What do you make of this?

We could start with the editor's actual personal attack when, in response to my admonition that he follow Wikietiquette, he chose to accuse me of edit-warring (!) and not acting in good faith by removing notability tags in his own drive-by fashion (an inaccurate misdirection given the interim improvements). Could my response to this incivility be considered incivil? Probably; but at least it was evidentiary.

Uncivil2 reads like a bad parody: it's the editor's own misdirection, claiming Variety fails as a reliable source, that required me to present the facts in rebuttal and, therefore, hold him to "an investigative standard" to which he should have abided in the first place if he's going to slap tags on an article clearly in progress. (TL;DR: he's trying to blame me for his actions and/or inactions.) He then quotes WP:CIVIL ("Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.") in a hilarious failure to recognize that, by repeatedly tagging an article that is obviously in the midst of improvements, he's the one doing the "bullying". (From the essay Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems: "Don't place a tag merely because it's technically permitted. Not every article needs a tag, even if the article could be expanded or improved. Use your best judgment and consider all of the facts and circumstances. Will the tag prompt a positive improvement? If not, then skip it." By doing otherwise, a tagger suggests to the article's editors the real-life equivalent of standing over them with a bullwhip [*crack* "Not good enough! Do it again!"].) "Note that everyone is a volunteer here", he adds. Um, well, yeah ...

In attempting to maintain some semblance of assuming good faith, I didn't want to accuse the editor of being deliberately obtuse; until he proved it here and within Uncivil2, where he clearly demonstrated he had read the improvements to the article and the evidence for its inclusion and made the conscious choice to ignore them.

Uncivil3: Did I appear to be gloating? Yes. Did I chastise myself in taming it back? Yes. Was either edit an "attack"? You be the judge.

Where do I start with Improper canvassing? I left the identical text here, here and here. The "favor" being requested referred to a FAC that died for lack of interest. Did I offer "favors"? Did I ask for a "vote" of any kind? Again, I'll let you be the judge.

Finally, an editor with no privileges just threatened to block me. Who is "bullying" whom?

Rather than ask you to act in any way—lest this appear that I'm somehow "canvassing"—let me ask instead: do you have a recommendation as to any next action I should take? — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 21:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Speaking of NPA ... xDDD

ATinySliver and Spshu. I suggest to you that an exchange like this shows neither party in a positive light. It does not matter who is in the right or who started it. The sensible thing to do is to end it by not replying and not carrying things further. The person who continues the longest usually ends up appearing to be in the wrong. The way to handle inappropriate comments on your own talk page is to remove them: you have the right to remove any material you see fit from your talk page. It's foolish to edit-war over notability tags. The place to settle a question about notability is afd.

I shall take a look at the outstanding substantive issues. There will be no need to post here about them. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG, Thank you for your time. Since the article was declined for "including copyrighted information" I am writing to find out what corrections/edits I need to make.

Thank you.

Materialreligion ( talk) 01:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I've made some suggestions on your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG. I see that you commented on this submission. I moved his own publications from references to their own section, and found some proper references to his positions. It's still pretty promotional, though, but I'm not sure what should go. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I cleaned up further & accepted, though iI intend to work on it further. ; this is an example of where it is easier to simply remove promotional sections than rewrite them. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

David, both sections on this talk page could benefit from your input. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC) reply

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

This one's not a full professor, but seems to have made a lot of contributions anyway. I added some references and removed some promotional language. — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, I see you shepherded this from AFC. I don't have access to the one reference (hard copy apparently), but if you google Balboa Scale it appears to be a size used in model trains. In the first couple of pages, other than mirrors of our own article, I couldn't find anything on this Balboa Scale. Is it obscure (notability concerns perhaps) or even real? Because you seem to have a hand in it, I highly doubt a hoax, but could you check to see if this is a proper article? Thanks Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Carlossuarez46, thanks for spotting my error. I took too much of faith. I did my own search properly now, and I too can find no published later use in the context discussed in the draft, tho I tried a variety of indirect approaches as well as straightforward google/google books. I moved it to draft space, and notified the user. In a desperate attempt to clear up old afcs, I've been reviewing 20 or 30 a day, which is too many to do it with the precision I normally aim at, which is 1% error; I think I'm averaging about 5% error in incorrect acceptances, and 20% error in declining when it would have been possible to improve and accept. This is more than I like, but seems to be about half the current overall error in both directions. It may simply be impossible to keep up at any better level. Fortunately, it's intended as a first rough screen. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

No problem. I'm trying to go through 300 uncategorized pages, and hope to get an error rate down to your levels. But when I came across your name associated with this one, I figured I'd let you know so you could set me arights or otherwise figure it out. :-) Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Absolutely. The only way we can improve accuracy is to correct each other if wrong, or explain things if right. Please continue as you have been doing. Some people think it polite to ignore someone's apparent errors: they're wrong, what is impolite to leave someone in ignorance. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Gods, some respected publishers perpetrate expensive junk.

(Sorry, had to vent somewhere.) -- Hoary ( talk) 23:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello DGG - here's a professor whose page has been in the review queue for some time... — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

needs some sharp abridgment; I've started & will finish tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I've made an appeal to the AN board that has gone unattended by an uninvolved admin for some time. It's become rather stale and I'd very much like a resolution one way or another. I sought you and two other editors out because I've appreciated your judgement in previous instances. Please understand that this isn't an appeal for your help, that's neither appropriate nor especially constructive. Instead I simply want this matter attended to by competent people who can impart a measure of finality at WP:AN. I'll totally understand your declining to review my appeal but I hope you'll consider giving it some of your time, even if it's to refer another administrator. GraniteSand ( talk) 12:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

GraniteSand, perfectly reasonable to ask for added participation, and I have commented. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		This is for your considered contributions to the process, all of which are delivered well. I do not always agree with you but I appreciate your voice and actions. Fiddle Faddle 18:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Who gave you the authority to delete this page without discussion? If you think the existing text constituted 'advertising' why didn't you edit it, or at least request someone else to do so? Obscurasky ( talk) 00:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It was listed for speedy deletion by another editor; as I agreed completely, I deleted it. The article contained almost entirely the most blatent of advertising content. I was however able to find a past version before the content was added, and restored up to that point. You are right that I should have checked for this before deleting.

In addition, I call to your attention that it has only references to their own website--no third party references at all. There is a claim to be "one of the largest" which is meaningless puffery without more specification--it could mean 2nd largest, or 22nd, or 200th. that it has survived here for several years without proper sourcing is yet another indication of how much work it will take to improve the quality of the encyclopedia up to even a minimum level. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Points accepted. I'll have a look at it soon. Many thanks. Obscurasky ( talk) 22:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Dear DGG,

You deleted Vector NTI before I could react (7 days is definitely too fast for occasional writers). It's an important bioinformatics package used in molecular biology. Because it's a specialist topic it probably appeared unimportant to you but to the thousands of people working in this area it's not. For me this is the point of the Wikipedia that it can contain specialists articles that would be culled in a book like the Britannica. Please reactivate or at least send me the text, so I can move it to a less restrictive wiki.

All the best, --— J.S. ^talk 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Since it was deleted only via PROD< you're entitled to have it restored, and I undeleted it. But there two serious problems that must be addressed. The first, is that it must be written in paragraphs , not as an outline. The second, is that you need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. It's not the specialist nature of the topic which is a problem, it's showing its notable via others than the developer writing about it. We go not by what the inherent nature of something is, but by what the world thinks of it-- see WP:N for an explanation./ DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, DGG. Thanks for your edits and approval on the page for Dr. Steichen. I would like to put in a photo of him, and have a very good one by a photographer for the main newspaper of Luxembourg. I just need to get the copyright holder's permission. I have tried to puzzle out exactly what the copyright holder would need to say state in order for the image to be acceptable. I would like to have a list ready for the copyright holder; I think that is only fair. Is there someone you know who could give me a list of what is needed? Honestly, I have tried to wade through the 5 or so pages of conditions, but there are so many conditions upon conditions that my head is aching. ----FrenchyWine — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchyWine ( talk • contribs) 23:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

the rules are at WP:DCM. Beyond there I cannot help you as I too consider our upload licensing procedures so absurdly complicated that I have been intimidated from ever learning how to do it. . DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi David, please see Talk:Academic journal#"Usually" peer-reviewed? (triggered by Template talk:Infobox journal#"peer reviewed"), Talk:Predatory open access publishing, and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#List of scammy academic journals. Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC) reply