User:DGG/talktempthru2015

basic rules about professor notability

 * All full professors at major research universities have sufficiently demonstrated that they are recognized experts in their subject to meet WP:PROF,and that WP:PROF is an alternative to WP:GNG. This is not a formal rule, but almost all AfD have had this result, except in fields where people here have doubts about the rigor, such as Education. (Major: in the US, Research Extensive in the Carnegie Classification + schools of similar rank; elsewhere, similar level). The rationale for this is that this is the basis on which people are promoted to such rank at such universities, and their judgment is more reliable than ours.)
 * For those at lower level institutions, this is not automatic, and the judgment goes by individual cases; the rationale is that in such institutions people are often promoted to this rank based on lesser accomplishments or for other qualities than being a recognized expert in their subject.
 * For Associate professors, automatic notability is not generally accepted, but is determined case by case. AfD results vary, but imho are usually reasonable.  Personally, I think it could be extended to them on similar grounds, but this has not had consensus. ("Associate" = the US rank, and corresponding ranks elsewhere)
 * For Assistant professors, and corresponding ranks outside the US, it similarly goes case by case, and almost all AfD results have been "not notable". I agree with this.
 * Additionally, in the humanities most full professors in the highest level universities-- ,-- have written two or more books that have reviews in RSs for notability, and thus meet WP:AUTHOR. In the very highest level universities, this applies to Associate professors also. In other fields, where tenure  usually depends on articles, not books, this doesn't work as frequently, but it sometimes does.  Similarly, in the fine arts, many people at various academic levels will qualify by WP:CREATIVE.
 * For that matter, if one argued on the basis of the GNG, we could find for almost anyone who has published one or more important papers that the 2 or more of the papers referencing them contain substantial discussions of their work. This would require examining the actual papers, as the mere fact of being cited does not necessarily or even usually mean there is substantial discussion of the work. If I really tried, I could probably find this for many people even at the post-doctoral level. As this result is contradictory to most people's intuitive feelings on the appropriate contents of an encyclopedia (as distinct from a faculty directory),  it shows imo the uselessness of the GNG in this subject. Before the WP:PROF standard became accepted, I did use it when it matched my intuitive view. If we return to GNG-worship, I will go back to using it.
 * Where the GNG is used here appropriately, is for people at any level whose work happens to strike the fancy of newspaper writers. I don't consider most such people notable as academics, but since the public will read the news accounts and want some objective information, it's reasonable to have the articles here. (I have sometimes objected to isolated news accounts as being based on PR if it seems really counter-intuitive).  DGG ( talk ) 17:39, Apr 24. 2012

Admin review

 * Which brings me to my pother point. When I was a new admin, I half expected someone would be assigned to follow me around for some time, just to make sure I was understanding the rules correctly. Either that didn't happen, or they were very, very quiet. (I'm even more surprised it isn't SOP at OTRS, but that’s a different issue.) I think we should have a more formal review system for new admins. I know there's the ability to check with someone else, but I'd like to see something more formal.

Having made my point, I'm not sure it belongs on the thread at this time, because my suggestion isn't going to help the problems that are being discussed at the moment, so maybe I'll think some more on it, and formalize a proposal later. Maybe after getting some thoughts from people like you.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct--I was oversimplifying. Sensible new admins do only the ones that are totally obvious while they are starting--it must be very discouraging to have people revert your first admin actions, and I've seen that happen. And it is true that I will make a point of checking speedy nominations others have thought it wise to pass by, and AfDs that people don't seem to want to close; I know some others do just the same, which is how we keep long lags from developing. But I had in mind also a few long term admins who actually do decide almost all equivocal cases as delete. To expand on what you have said, in a direction of my own,
 * I have occasionally checked a new admin's deletions if I think from the RfA there is likely to be some problems, and I suppose others do similarly. But I do not know if any people systematically reviews the admin logs the way people do new pages--if anyone does, I've noticed no sign of it. The only thing I've seen checked systematically is the very long-standing page protections.  It might be a good thing to do. The AfD closes are very visible, the prods have been checked by several people before they get to the top of the list, but speedies and blocks and unblocka and protections and unprotections don't get looked at, unless someone suspects a problem. I have sometimes thought of doing it, but I have always stopped, because, to be frank about it, I don't want to see the errors. I can't pass over a clear error I do see, and I am fully aware that some admins use the tools beyond the proper limits. Some of these are my friends, & I can mention it to them from time to time quietly. But for obvious reasons most of the ones I would disagree with are by people I often disagree with, with whom relations are often not all that friendly. I don't want to spend all my time quarreling and navigating sticky situations; though I may get the errors corrected, it is not likely to improve mutual relations. (I am also aware that I too make both errors and borderline interpretations, & I suppose I even sometimes interpret things the way I would like them to be, &  if I have any enemies here, I do not really want to encourage them to  audit me with the utmost possible rigidity. I expect I could be able to very well support my interpretations, but as Samuel Johnson put it, nobody however conscious of their innocence wants to every day have to defend themselves on a capital charge before a jury.
 * When I started here, I wondered how a system with a thousand equally powerful admins who could all revert each other could possibly exist. I soon learnt the subtleties of wheel warring--there were some major arb com cases on it during my first year here which pretty much defined the limits. But more important, I also learned that even the more quarrelsome spirits here understood the virtues of mutual forbearance--and that even the most self-sufficient people do not really want to look publicly foolish. Our balance is I think over-inclined to protecting the guilty if they are popular enough, but it is not as bad as it could be, or as it often is in human societies.  DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I smiled at your closing comment. I had the same, thought, although for the project as a whole, rather than just the admin function. I'm more recent to the project because, when I first heard about it, a few years before actually joining, I thought about the model and decided it couldn't possibly work. Oddly, I still feel that way, intellectually. If there were no such thing as Wikipedia, and I heard a proposal to create, my instinct is that it will fail miserably. I actually can't quite put my finger on why it hasn't failed. SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review response thank you / Tutoring newbies on how to do online research
I left a thank you for your response — and unrelated question(s) — here. Another thing that maybe we agree on is the importance of knowing how to do research. I really like Wikipedia's Search Engine usage guidelines and tutorial, and have tried to link to them from Article titles — because I think it's important to research usage when deciding the best article title, best category title, or the most appropriate term to use — but my attempts to link to this have been repeatedly reverted by people who think they own anything related to the MoS. Likewise, for the same reason, I have been unable to add links from Wikipedia:Article titles to the regional MoS guides. The article on category naming conventions also does not explain how to search existing categories or link to the above article on how to use search engines to research the best category title, either. Maybe you have some advice or ideas on this? LittleBen (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I discovered in my first year here that there were some parts of Wikipedia where despite my interest in the subject, for one or another reason I was unlikely to be very effective. Prominent among these were the MOS and categorization. I am a little concerned with article titles, and in that field, fundamentally I disagree with you -- I think the best article title should be the clearest and fairest, and counting ghits or the equivalent is usually irrelevant. And to the extent I understand categorization debates the problem there is often finding a sufficiently clear wording to encompass the desired set of article. I think the MOS is a little more rational than it was 4 years ago; if I were doing it, I'd limit to to pure matters of style, which does not include choice between article titles, just such matters as whether to use singular or plurals. But in questions  like this, your opinion is as valid as mine, and there is no point in arguing the issue here--neither of us is "right".  DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My main question was aimed at getting your opinion on "Tutoring newbies on how to do online research". You don't seem to have answered this, but maybe this is something that Kudpung is more interested in than you are. My comment on article titles was related to this: there seem to be many people creating new articles without adequately researching if there is an existing article on the subject already. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia Search, by default, only shows if there is an article title that is an exact match to the search term; it does not show if there is a category that matches the search term. If it did, it would be far easier to find related material. It is difficult to work out how to search categories. Terminology (e.g. article titles and category titles) is often inconsistent for this reason. Just one example: There are Web browser engine and List of web browser engines articles, but there are nine Comparison of layout engines (XXX) articles, and the category is Category:Layout engines. I don't understand your reference to counting ghits, and don't understand how my viewpoint disagrees with yours. LittleBen (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I got another response on the Deletion review thread that pointed me to a discussion here that may interest you. LittleBen (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not covering everything. The WP search function is not the problem; if it does not find an article, it suggests searching for the term. Perhaps the page could be revised to suggest that first, rather than as an alternative to making an article. I think there has been some previous debate on whether it should initially search for the term rather than the article. I also have seen it said that by the standards of other search engines, it could use some sophistication. About 1/3 of people come here from Google etc., and though those search engines rank article titles at the top, they also include articles with the term anywhere. But the Google search engine is, deliberately, getting dumber and dumber; it is no longer possible to use the "+" character as an intersection, and Google Scholar has removed the limit to subject field possibility in advanced search.
 * Many apparently duplicate articles are created deliberately as a POV fork, others in the mistaken belief that WP includes essays on very specific term-paper type topics. Many are simply naive, as when someone submits a two sentence article on something where we have extensive coverage.
 * I think teaching people to search properly is a part of research, but the main result of its failure is not the duplicate articles, but the unreferenced articles. Way back when Google was new and exciting, we librarians used to impress the students by showing we could use it more effectively than they could. (The secret is partially cleverness and experience in selecting search terms, but mainly just persistence--something like 90% of users stop at the first page of results--I will if necessary scan through even a few thousand.  I have found that people learn by experience better than didactic instruction, provided they are alert enough to pay attention to what experience shows them. Certainly we should do a better job teaching beginners, but the way I think works best is to show them one at a time how to  do better. A person learns best when one individual person shows them how to fix their errors and misconceptions, and this is not done by templates. Besides Kudpung & myself, very few NPPatrollers or even admins take the trouble and patience. It's too much for a few people--we need everyone who is able to do it. We progress not by discussing how to work, but by working.  DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that we progress not by discussing how to work, but by working. You seem to be better at that (more productive) than I am ;-) But sometimes it's more scalable if we offer others the opportunity of learning how to do the work (not specifically thinking of Tom Sawyer ;-). Thanks and best regards. LittleBen (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI - user warnings
As suggested. :) I think our next step is making sure that the code is correct, and then we can start implementing. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk   17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was suggested by several people at Wikimania that we quickly make similar changes in level 4 and 4im, and then consider whether to combine levels--that part would need an rfc. The easiest way to go now would probably be  to go to three levels, by combining  2/3, to avoid having to rewrite the level 1 warnings.  DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of Encyclopedias
You are invited to join in a discussion at User talk:Dr. Blofeld over my plans to develop a comprehensive set of bibliographies of encyclopedias and dictionaries by topic. I hope you see the potential of such a project and understand that while highly ambitious it will be drawn up gradually over time.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Rising above the mediocre
What you said here was very interesting. "I do not think a community editing project where anyone can edit will ever rise above mediocre quality. Our goal should be to not come below it--above is unreachable. The greater the degree of summarization, the more skilled the writing must be. Even among the scholarly societies, many more are capable of specialized writing than of general introductions."

I would agree personally with that. Summarising a comprehensive subject is difficult, as it involves both a comprehensive knowledge of the subject itself (rare), and good communication skills (less rare, but not frequent). But it surprised me you say that because you seem to be one of the main defenders of the Wikipedia 'ideology', i.e. the idea of 'epistemic egalitarianism', the idea that a 17 year old has as much to contribute as a professor etc. Do you see any conflict between the view you expressed above, and your belief or faith in Wikipedia? Interesting Hestiaea (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it by such monumental terms as "faith and belief"; my  hope and expectation for Wikipedia is that it will be a good and useful general encyclopedia. Some aspects of it are already very good, and can be excellent:  comprehensive scope, up-to-date coverage. Some will be very good, and are quite good already:  accuracy, referencing and cross-linking.   Some will I hope become good, though they have problems at present: freedom from advertising and bias. Some will never rise above mediocre: the quality of the writing, including their detailed style. Some of all this is characteristic of a  large scale community project: comprehensiveness, timeliness, lack or bias, linking. Some are special features of the people gathered here and they way they work: objectivity, accuracy, referencing.
 * The intention was for WP to be at the level of the average college student. Many 17 year olds are at that level, some considerably younger in fields with no special academic pre-requisites. Certainly the high school and junior high school Wpedians I have known in Wp circles have been working at a mature level. I  learned this freedom from agist bias from my parents, who treated their children as rational beings who would learn more if given the opportunity. Here, we give them that chance. Children should be treated as adults as soon as they're ready, when it does not risk their safety. This is a very safe place, compared to others on the web. And it does not affect our own safety, because when there are errors, there are thousands of people to fix them.
 * As I said elsewhere, there still remains the need for an encyclopedia of higher academic quality. Most high school students would not be able to participate significantly, but neither would most adults. And a great many of those with advanced subject degrees I have known in my career would not have the necessary skill at comprehensive comprehensible writing. Scholars too need to be edited, and complicated works do best with skilled organization. It can be more efficient to have questions settled by editorial ukase. But not always: as you know, I joined WP and Citizendium at the same time, resolved to go with the one that made more progress.  DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! BTW I wasn't aware of your involvement with Citizendium.
 * I don't altogether agree with your comment about academic quality. I don't think articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be suitable for WP.  What is needed is well-summarised and well-explained articles on difficult or general subjects that would be accessible to anyone of high school age (15-18) and above.  The Wikipedia article on Being and the corresponding SEP article  are both unreadable but for different reasons.  The WP article, as you will appreciate, is a rambling dog's breakfast of uncited original research (plus some glaring factual errors). The SEP article looks pretty accurate to me but just goes off into the clouds ("Anti-Meinongian First-Order View") once it gets going. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is better for a general audience but is incomplete. Hestiaea (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick question: Outlines
In my work on public relations I came across this article Outline of public relations, which seems like a massively extended See also section of the PR article. Should I AfD it as a fork? CorporateM (Talk) 15:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's intended as such, essentially as a table of contents, like  Outline of physical science, and many others: see WikiProject Outlines and Portal:Contents/Outlines. They are more systematically arranged than th text format of a general article, which requires reading, not scanning, to find specific topics. They are more article oriented than Portals -- see Portal:Philosophy, but more general than   Indexes & Lists such as Index of standards articles or Glossaries, such as Glossary of US mortgage terminology .  There's also a combination page type: Portal:Contents/History and events-- click "see in all page types".


 * It's a good question  whether we need all of these systems of organization. We've tried others: a systematic organization based on List of Dewey Decimal classes or Library of Congress Classification or Outline of Roget's Thesaurus, and yet others have been proposed. I think the overlap more than they ought to, but we'll never get agreement on which to concentrate on. Personally, I very much like the Outline of... structure, and would support it over the others.  I believe that's the current tendency, also. Ideally everything would be indexed according to the two library systems also, because they're familiar--not that they're any good--especially LC, which was designed to match the structure of a US university curriculum in the first decade of he 20th century. There is no viable one dimensional way to organize knowledge--the alternative is some sort of Faceted classification, whose construction and use can get really complicated.  There's even a totally different approach--to have no classification or indexing of any sort, but rely on free text implemented as  we implement the see alsos, and the hyperlinks, as anything anyone thinks related, with no systematic organization. Or the extreme of having everything be a free text search.


 * Perhaps however you are asking whether every item on that particular outline you mentioned belongs--that's for discussion on its talk page, or whether other things should be added, in which case boldly add them. Or whether the whole outline is biased in some way, in which case, discuss it. Only if it is irretrievably biased or confusing should it be deleted.


 * Categories are a necessary complement--they are self-populating, but eliminate the possibility of saying anything about the individual items. I use them very heavily for what I do, which is, upon finding a problem article, finding others that are likely to have a similar problem. They should also do very well for finding term paper topics. They will be more effective as subject guides when we implement category intersection in a simply and obvious manner. (And there's the related Series Boxes, those colored boxes at the bottom. I dislike them--they're visually awful, and are used frequently to express or dispute a POV. But they do serve nicely to indicate missing articles.


 * Quick question, long answer. See chapter 17 of Wikipedia the missing manual for a longer one, oriented towards categories.  DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC).

Library resources box
DGG, I and I expect others would appreciate your continued attention at the talk around user:JohnMarkOckerbloom's Template:Library resources box. There is a deletion discussion about this at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_30. There was an article about this template in The Signpost in March, and some external press in other places.

This seems like a big issue which could set a precedent for how the Wikipedia community interacts with libraries.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

category intersects
Since you've mentioned wikidata many time, I thought you'd be interested in this: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection. We could use it as a band-aid while waiting for wikidata to spin up. Also w.r.t your votes - I think that whether we use the proposal i made above, or wikidata, simplifying the categories *beforehand* will actually make things easier. None of the categories i've proposed deleting could not be recreated through an intersect - but for now they serve to ghettoize and are against the guidance for ethnic cats.
 * Anyway, regardless of what you decide on the CFD votes, I'd really appreciate your input and help on the cat intersect proposal. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have almost always supported ethnic subcategories. People look for articles in these fields, often to find subjects for school papers. I in general agree with maintaining the categories in the meanwhile, but I'm not sure its worth arguing about them for the present, considering the degree of opposition. As I said there is that intersection will remove the entire need for the discussions.What we need  most to keep are the categories from which the intersections will be constructed.   (Defining and organizing the root data is a harder problem--I find some of the current Wikidata proposals a little too casual. Adding data fields as one thinks of them is not as good as a systematic ontology.)   DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Admins tagging for speedy
I noticed you (and other admins) often tag pages for speedy deletion, even though you can delete them yourselves. Is this out of personal preference for wanting review by another admin or is there some guideline or unspoken rule that calls for review by at least two different people? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of us think it better that two people see the article. I am capable of mistakes, and I know I occasionally make them, because people are not at all reluctant to tell me--sometimes I will have missed something, or not understood, or just gone too quickly. Even for the utterly obvious,  there's the possibility of carelessness or sleepiness, or just frustration at having been seeing so many  totally unsatisfactory articles.  I doubt anything requiring human judgment  can be done at less than 1% error. I've deleted over 12,000 articles over the 7 years I've been doing this. and that would have been 120 wrong deletions, and potentially 120 good editors lost to WP. But with someone else checking, that makes it only 1 or 2 in the whole time.

In fact, I've argued that this should be absolutely required, but there are cases where one must act immediately, and it's been difficult to specify exactly the exceptions.  DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, thanks. I agree with you. I was just curious. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that there are times when you must act immediately, such as WP:ATTACK and WP:OUTING and possibly other situations. Do the admins have a tool that makes it easy for admins to "delete (or WP:REVDELETE) now, and list the page for review by another administrator ASAP" and if they do, to most admins who make "unilateral deletions" use this tool?  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no rule that  admins can't  delete anything  on  sight, but  tagging  and leaving  for a second admin  to  delete is a good, unwritten  practice that  most  seem to  observe. Most  of us will  of course delete blatant COPYVIO, attack, and vandal  pages immediately and some other cases of obvious nonsense. However, admins don't  actually  make many  mistakes with  their deletions, so  'delete and review later' by  another admin  would be redundant. I've deleted around 3,000 pages and only  restored 20, and those were userfications. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I define 1% as "many" if one thinks of the cumulative effect over the years. If everyone who had a reasonable case stayed and complained, yes it would work, but most don't. There's also the definition of "error"-- does it mean an article that would pass AfD, or an article that with enough work might possibly pass AfD, an article to which the speedy criteria did not apply, but would end up deleted anyway The 1% is for the first two classes; for the third, it's more like 5%. In any case the error rate will depend on the type of speedys.  I tend to look at the ones that have been passed over for a few hours. I only really know about my own errors, and of course my rate may be unusually high because I  may be unusually incompetent. Some years ago I did intend to audit speedies--the reactions I received from admins involved in the ones I challenged persuaded me it was not the route to effectiveness here, and tolerating injustice in this was the way to be more useful overall. (There was 1, & only 1, admin who did change their practice in response to my comments.) I think I will decide the same about the G13 AfCs.  DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

SIgns of promotionalism

 * For anyone watching, there are some internal signs of promotional-style biographies for businessmen that are almost always copyvio as well (besides the obvious  giveaway of  a statement of how important the company is, and especially a statement of how important their duties were in previous positions in the firm.)
 * Headings that use instead of our formatting
 * Placing the education at the end, with a final sentence about spouse and children.
 * Not giving the positions in chronological order, and often not including earlier positions except the one just before coming to the firm.
 * The corresponding signs for academics are slightly different, depending on whether they're done by a central office or by the individual. For senior administrators they characteristically include multiple junior executive positions and in-university awards. For any faculty, if the individual wrote it, it will often includes full details of all publications however minor; if the central office, it will omit most exact titles, especially for journal articles.   DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Local interest topics again
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Edit description
Thanks for your edit description here, it's much nicer and more informative than the usual form message that gets left. -- T K K  bark !  00:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Anthologies
G'day DGG,

Thanks for your comment We normally accept inclusion in anthologies as notability, which as well as being a welcome contribution to that particular discussion interests me more generally.

I agree we should, but is this documented anywhere? I can't find any explicit mention in guidelines or policies or help pages, but perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong places.

Or, are there other notability discussions where inclusion in anthologies has been cited as evidence? I don't lurk on AfD currently (I used to but WP:RM seemed to have a greater need) so I'd have missed them.

Any help appreciated. I'm vaguely thinking of proposing some sort of tweak to notability guidelines to better cover hymnists, and don't want to be reinventing the wheel and/or generating useless instruction creep. Andrewa (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * we've routinely used this for poets and writers of short stories, and for short stories themselves-- see for example Articles for deletion/Mouse (short story), where it was used in a negative sense, deleted for not being in anthologies.  I don't know we've used it in this context before. There was an explicit guideline   once somewhere; I typically have the sort of memory that always remembers if I've seen something, but not necessarily where or when.  Actually, I consider this an exceedingly  broad criterion, but so is NBOOK, and in consequence NAUTHOR.  .   DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 *  I have now come to interpret this as not in standard anthologies, which is much less broad - DGG

Notability
Hi DGG, You've nominated several of my articles for deletion or speedy deletion. I'm always careful to write neutrally and cite everything that I write. Obviously, I think the topics that I choose are notable, but you disagree with me on some points. I find the notability guidelines to be somewhat vague, so if a topic has enough information written about it in newspapers, magazines, or similar media to create a short article, then I go ahead and create one. Is there some other measure or guideline that you're using to determine notability? Are there a certain number of sources that you look for, or does a magazine need a certain amount of circulation? Guidance is appreciated. Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I rather expected to hear from you, and I've delayed nominating further articles until I could see your response. There are two separate but linked problems in articles about organizations, their leaders, and their products: notability and promotionalism:


 * The basic problem of promotionalism is that WP is addressed to the potential readers, giving them the information they might want to know upon seeing mention of a subject (for example, at the most basic,  where is that company and what does the company do?, or which organization is that & what do they advocate? ). A promotional article is addressed to a prospective user or purchaser or supporter: This is what we do, and here is why it is valuable that you buy our products or support our endeavors. Encyclopedia articles are characterised by plain description, promotional ones by praise, or the sort of detail one would need only if one is considering a purchase. Promotional articles are intended to give a favorable image of the company, such as describing its ostensible social purposes or community contributions.
 * the basic problem of notability is deciding whether something is worth describing in an encyclopedia at all. It doesn't correspond to importance in the world, but to whether it should be included in WP--we can;t after all judge the world, but we must decide what we want to put in our encyclopedia. . In a few cases we go by a general decision--for example, the decision that all named populated places are appropriate for articles.  In some others, we go by outside evaluation: for example, that a holder of a distinguished professorship at a major university is notable, or  someone chosen to compete in the Olympics. In many cases, there are no such firm standards, and we go by the WP:GNG, the general notability guideline, which requires substantial  coverage by multiple independent third party reliable sources. (some people say this is the only real standard, and everything else is just an assumption of what will meet it). the key words  there are "substantial", "independent" , and "reliable." A substantial source is more than a product listing, or a mention of an event taking place, but a significant discussion, such as a full product review.  How substantial it must be is of course a matter of judgment, which is decided by consensus at WP:AFD. An independent source is one not derived from the subject--not the subject's web page of product literature, or what its principals write, or the press releases the put out. A reliable source is one using editorial judgment, rather than simply publishing press releases or gossip. Again, these terms are matters of judgement to be decided at consensus.
 * In all but extreme cases. nobody can predict accurately how consensus will go--I will nominate an article for deletion if I think there is a substantial probability that it will not be considered suitable, --but even after 7 dears of experience at it, sometimes I am wrong, either because I made a misjudgment or because the community wishes to interpret things differently. The community decides, and another administrator judges what the community has decided. Guidelines are necessarily subject to interpretation, and what really matters is how the community decides to interpret them--after all, we make our own rules collectively, and we can decide how we want to use them , and if we want to make exceptions. The best way of learning this is to observe afd discussions on similar topics, to see what arguments succeed, and what the practical standards are.
 * Some things are deleted immediately, by the concurrence of two administrators, rather than an AfD. One relevant example is blatant promotionalism, which is an article so much devoted to advertising or promoting something that there appears no way to fix it without rewriting. (As an admin, I have the technical ability to do it without concurrence, but I rarely use it unless there is some immediate hazard, such as libel or copyvio) . We also immediately remove articles on people or companies where it seems obvious on the face of it there is no possible  indication of any importance or significance, --a much less demanding standard than actual notability,.  Again, normally two admins will concur in this.  If such deletions are seriously disputed in good faith, most admins will reverse the decision and send the article to AfD for a community opinion.
 * I said there was a connection between the two: A key reason we have a notability standard is that for most things that are not notable, there is nothing much to say except directory information or promotion. It is critical to WP that it not become a mere directory or a place for advertisement--we want to provide information that people can trust, so we require sources and objectivity and some degree of significance. There are many other places on the web for advertising, and google does very nicely as a web directory.
 * There are additionally some factors that can affect how people here view an article. We tend to regard an attempt to write simultaneous articles about a borderline notable company, its products, and its executives likely to be an attempt at promotion--it is much better to have one strong article.   Also, it is considered possible that someone writing articles about a wide range of barely notable subjects may be doing so as a paid editor. We do not absolutely prohibit this (though many people here would like to do so), but we strongly discourage it, because it is extremely difficult  to be objective about what one writes with such a strong conflict of interest.  If by any chance you are such an editor, I can explain to you how best to deal with it so as to get the articles accepted--I am one of the relatively few admins here who are willing to assist paid editors who come here openly in good faith and are willing to learn our standards. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your detailed response. If I am not completely sure whether a subject is notable, should I submit it to WikiProject_Articles_for_creation?
 * I really thought I was careful about keeping promotionalism out of my articles. I would like to improve them, if given the chance. Is there a way that I can edit the deleted articles and then submit them for approval to be posted? I've read something about restoring articles to a userspace, but I'm not sure what the procedure is for that. I absolutely do want to contribute quality articles and nothing that other editors might view as promotional. Thanks for your help. HtownCat (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take a look next week. You should first check if there are good references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, because otherwise a rewrite is useless.  DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Library holdings
Hello DGG! Thank you for your note at my talk page, I appreciate the feedback. I will look at those articles you listed this weekend and do some cleanup on them. I'll also try to be more mindful of promotionalism in the future. I'm curious about your technique of judging notability by library holdings, as in the Jedediah Bila AfD - it seems useful especially for pre-internet authors. Do you use Worldcat to find that information? How many libraries do you think are necessary for notability? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WorldCat most of the time. But WorldCat requires interpretation  for 5 factors: First, it covers mainly US and Canadian libraries, with a lesser coverage for the UK and Australia and New Zealand, a very scanty coverage of Western Europe, and little else, so it requires careful interpretation when used elsewhere. Second, it covers almost entirely English language books, for in the US only the largest   academic libraries buy anything else.  Third, it   covers current holdings, so what libraries had 50 years ago is not represented, so for older books of shorter spans of interest such as popular fiction it requires correction also. Fourth, how many titles count for a book to be likely notable depends on the type of book--  mainstream novels and important nonfiction are much more represented than esoteric subjects. I go by the experience of having looked for many books of all sorts, and one can do the equivalent by comparison with books known to be notable. (I have sometimes used comparisons to say that a work is or is not a major work in a field)  As a fifth factor: editions must be combined to get a true picture, and the way libraries report holdings this is not always easy. As a result I usually report holdings as approximate figures.  For major current works in popular interest academic subjects like economics, a notable book would have at least several hundred. For experimental fiction that fits no standard genre, only a few dozen libraries might buy it, but it can be just as important. For fan-oriented books on games, libraries usually buy very little, because they get outdated very quickly. For some of the kinkier sexual topics, libraries don't buy at all. A scattering of small libraries often indicates author gift copies.
 * The official WP standard is book reviews. But library holding correlate nicely with book reviews, because libraries buy largely on the basis of such reviews, especially for public libraries.
 * Outside the US, holdings can be gotten from the catalogs listed at WP:Booksources But none have nearly the depth of coverage in their own countries that WorldCat does in the US. -- but there is the very powerful consolidated search facility of Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog at .  DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the effort you put into the close at WT:MOS. There were a lot of words to read and to write. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 03:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It was a sprawling debate that'd been going on in multiple forums for so long it's hard to get a complete sense of it without a lot of reading. Thanks for putting in the time and thinking it through.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! A very generous donation of time to get your mind round a long-long-long meandering debate with loads of distractions, and very brave to tackle one where people feel so strongly. I think you did an excellent job. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, you're off my Xmas card li- As much as I hate the result, I appreciate with the time and effort put in to possibly one of the most detailed closing rationales I have read. Despite apparent appearances to the contrary, I do support the idea of a global Manual of Style and conformity and am content to abide by the decision. Agree with the idea of some sort of bot to enact this. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have preferred a different outcome, but your arguments were really well-done and respectful to all positions. Kudos for you. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A very most excellent example of gentle mop-wielding, though I am sure that some members of the species Gallus domesticus minoris will consider that the end of the Wikipedia is nigh. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DGG. You've put a very contentious issue to rest, and probably for good. As ever, I'm flattered when people think I'm you. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto, I just wanted to thank you as well although I followed the discussion from a distance (I think it had more than enough active participants). Admins can get a lot of flack but when one takes on settling such a sprawling debate, knowing that no matter what one decides, there will be some very unhappy editors, I can only say thanks. And providing such a thoughtful rationale (rather than a sentence-long decision), is admirable and helps the decision "stick"...ambiguity would have only resulted in further challenges to your decision. Instead, if individuals do want to overturn this decision, they know that the burden of providing evidence resides with those wishing to change the status quo, and there has to be a substantial case to do so. Liz  Read! Talk! 19:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am hoping that you won't need to clarify that the consensus finding doesn't only apply to birds, but you might; there's a (smaller and quieter) camp who want to always capitalize moths/butterflies and dragonflies, and another in favor of doing the same with common names of British (and I think Australian) plants. The debate may have focused on birds, but that focus should be scene as license to capitalize non-bird species common names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, DGG. I've been hard at work on an article that you've passed through the administrative gateway. My appreciation... Yaakov bressler (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the opposition to this and the other parallel "Jews in .." articles that were deleted is so opposite to everything I hold important in the world, including the idea of a NPOV encyclopedia,  that I can only with difficulty participate in these discussions.   I have elsewhere ascribed it to the desire   to hide the significance of Jews in the world to avoid arousing the anti-Semites. It is not possible  to logically argue against fear and irrationality.     DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I did justice to your very acute wake-up comments at the AfD, particularly striking because, in the drift towards uniformity, you took a stand marked by complete independence of judgement. Deeply appreciated. When I read, particularly, "There is no reason why anyone--in particular any Jew --should find anything shameful about the association of Jews and Communism in Russia, except the inability to foresee the future." I thought of Vasily Grossman's outstanding Life and Fate, which manages, other than the direct horror of the context, to write astonishing vignettes that embrace all the complexities of identities, Kalmuck/Tartar Jewish swept up in the Communist cause, with, among comrades, the various prejudices, ethnic/antisemitic, coming to the surface, only to be talked out. 2% of the officer class of the Soviet forces that effectively won WW2, despite our films and lore, were Jewish. The great vice of superficial eyes is to judge with the facile wisdom of hindsight while ignoring the hard and sometimes tragic options fronting real people in earlier generations (it's true, for me, also of 1948). After the trench warfare attritions and military command's quasi genocidal military tactics in WW1, choosing to be Communist was one of the few ostensibly rational or ethical options left, something events in Italy and Germany in the succeeding decade could only reinforce. Thanks, anyway, and sorry for this soapy intrusion.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You may appreciate in connection with the novel the edition of his wartime notebooks,A Writer at War : a Soviet Journalist with the Red Army, 1941-1945 edited and translated by Antony Beevor and Luba Vinogradova. For another account of the appeal & disappointment of Communism, see the final volume of Victor Klemperer's diary, The Lesser Evil  DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Questionable notability page for WikiProject:Women Artists
Hi! Here you go WikiProject_Women_artists/Notability_concerns. SarahStierch (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey!
Hi, David, It was a pleasure to meet you, face-to-face, and hear your presentation. Are your slides posted on the Wikiconference page? I'm really interested in the stats you shared about the state of AfC in 2007 vs. 2013. I think it's so important to be aware of the changes occurring on Wikipedia as it evolves over time in order to gain an accurate long-term view of where things are headed. Thanks again! Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Review
Hi DGG, if it isn't a bother, could you take a quick look and review - Robert E. Olds, Joseph P. Cotton, Marcus M. Haskell, Osgood T. Hadley and Henry A. Hammel These are my first five article creations, I'm in the process of creating rest of the missing Civil War recipients of the Medal of Honor. There seems to be quite a backlog at New Page Patrol. Regards,  NQ    talk  22:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1 point: in addition to saying in a general note that the material is copied from the US govt site, it's best to indicate by quotation marks exactly what has been copied--is it just the quotation in the box? then add it in the footnote there.  DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Only the MOH citation is copied verbatim from the Public domain material. The general note added is a template . I am not sure there is a parameter to include exactly which portion is copied.   NQ    talk  02:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will find a way to do it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Detecting copyvio

 * My approach to copyright is not to rely on google, but to check the person's web site, and any other posssible relevant external link or reference. In particular, many universities use noindex on the web sites, or on the portions of it which is a people directory.  DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing copyvio

 * The choice of which way to solve problems of copyvio is not purely a question of administrator idiosyncrasy, but involves many factors.


 * The general principles are found in both WP :COPYRIGHT and WP:Deletion Policy and its subpages. First, Deletion policy is that "Reasons for deletion  [are] subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)" and "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" Section 3.1 for copyright violations says "remove the violation if possible, or edit the page to replace its entire content with  . For blatant, whole-page copyright violation, you can simply tag it for speedy deletion with  after checking that there are no non-copyvio versions in the page history." Second, with respect to copyvio, WP:CSD says it applies to  "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with , and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. " Third, at WP:COPYVIO,  it says "Handling of suspected violations of copyright policy depends on the particulars of a given case"  It then says "If you have strong reason to suspect ... some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. "and "  If all of the content [is]... a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable,  if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted. "Fourth, looking at WPRevision Deletion, one of the permitted uses is  for "Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion."  The word "Blatent" is obviously open to interpretation, but  a small paragraph copied from the persons website is not "blatant".


 * I. removing a whole article because a nonessential part is copyright is not supported by policy. None the less, policies have some flexibility, and admins sometimes do that, and I have done something a little like it on occasion, based on the phrase in G12 "when there is no non-infringing content worth saving". If the articles is inherently promotional, I generally delete saying both G11 and G12, and I think of "entirely promotional" in a more more flexible way when there is significant copyvio. For articles, I'll sometimes do the same with A7/G12. For draft where A7 does not apply, and which the person has been repeatedly submitting without improvement, I'll try to find some reason. I will be more flexible in helping those. 
 * II. As a general rule there is no reason to revision-delete, as long as the copyvio text is removed from the current version. It is not even permitted unless the violation was "blatant".

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

 * 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 specificity and a third party quotation.  Just remove all these throughout the entire article, or add a   "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)


 * 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)
 * 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 are 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)

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)
 * Kilroy was here Face-grin.svg &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom, DGG. Well deserved. - NQ (talk)  02:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, welcome aboard. NativeForeigner Talk 03:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "a Checkuser, which I am not" - Well, you will be soon. Congrats! Altamel (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mazel tov! HG | Talk 07:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether to congratulate or console you, but I am glad that you were elected. Thank you for volunteering for this difficult, yet critical, work to keep the project running. -- Avi (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I came also for congratulations! So far arbitration was (for me at least) a synonym for waste of time, and ideally it shouldn't even be needed, - let's work on that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you for, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done - highest number of positive votes shows your wide-spread respect. Pam  D  10:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's going to suck you absolutely dry for contributing anywhere else, but I can't think of any one more suited to the task of Arbitrator. Thank you for running for election and thank you in advance for all the good work you will be doing there. Warmest regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Coming off my wikibreak to say congrats. I'm confident you will do good things.  I'm also confident that Kudpung is correct; it will be an all-consuming and thankless task for the next two years, but my impression is that you were ready for a new challenge, and I know you are fully capable of handling it.  Farmer Brown 2&cent; 12:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and good luck. You're one of the people on Wikipedia I have always respected greatly, and hope the other great work I've seen you do translates well to ArbCom. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Take it easy, please.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations DGG :) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations DGG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wishing you all the best during your time on ArbCom. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another voice to applaud your success in the recent popularity contest. I hope you find your new role satisfying and may it bring you contentment. Dolescum (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And another - it seems to be less of a nightmare job than in the past, but take it easy. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So cool. Congratulations.  JSFarman (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats my friend and mentor. I totally missed the elections or you could totally have counted on me for a Support. Happy HOlidays StarM 01:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If it is permitted, and I know some initiation ceremonies by definition require an oath of secrecy, it might be nice if you can tell us what all is involved in the formal initiation ceremony. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Where should I aim the magnetic pulse field at to help jump start the Inductor? /silly Hasteur (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Congratulations and best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification Requested on Copy and Paste Articles
To what degree is it permitted to create an article that is entirely, or very near so, a direct copy and paste from a single source now in the public domain? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it is permitted, but it has to be specified exactly what part is taken from the source, and future edits must keep this distinct. Some of our templates, say "some or all" has been taken from particular source. In my opinion, this is inadequate attribution. Exact quotation marks or some other equally clear indication is needed. There are I believe several thousand articles in this unsatisfactory sate, and as editing continues over the years, the result is very confusing both in terms of attribution and in terms of keeping material up to date and not based upon totally outdated views.  This has bothered me since I've come here, but it hasn't bothered enough others to make any progress.


 * The real problem is not just attribution; the more insidious problem is accuracy. The article you cite on Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine (1524 – 1574) shows this. The source, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is accurate as a summary for the facts as known at the time, but was never known for balance in its coverage, or for NPOV interpretation, and lacks adequate explanation of what to them was fundamental (That does not mean I do not think highly of it for many purposes--I even own a printed set.)  The knowledge of sources, the interpretations of scholars, the interest in particular aspects, will be  very different on every topic, no matter how old, from  the state of things 100 years ago; even when religious orientation is irrelevant, cultural bias is usually present.  (I do not know enough about this particular topic to give a detailed critique, because my own knowledge of the period in France is based primarily upon historical fiction, whose biases can be very similar to that of outdated histories.)  DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that summary. It confirms most of my concerns and adds a couple. I am unsure how much I can correct, but I will work on it a bit and add some tags as needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Redlink
Can you peek at my notes about "personal names" linking at the WP:Redlink article. It still is confusing to understand. I am not sure if I am interpreting it correctly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am going to take a stab at rewording it. It still reads that we should not have red linked names.

Wikia licensing
Whoa. Surprised I haven't run into a copy/paste from Wikia before (re: Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc.). It's really ok for Wikipedia purposes, though? Their licensing default looks to require attribution, which seems a problem unless we're going to put the whole article in quotes and cite Wikia as a source. I understand that's a different issue from a copyvio, but still seems problematic, no? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the Wikia content should work and the docs include some suggestion on how to use the template. Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if the source is PD there is an attribution problem. In principle everything can be attributed properly by keeping the edit history, but in practice it will soon be unclear to the reader what part comes from where. This confuses the page history of all the EB and Catholic Encyclopedia and similar entries, and confuses it in a worse way, because the original source is out of date almost completely, and it is not easy to tell what may have been added by uptodate sources. (In my opinion adding that material was a serious mistake made in the early days of WP, when the expected level of accuracy for articles was much lower) There needs to be serious work done in rewriting every one of those articles, for there is no topic whatsoever where additional material is not known since then and anything implying a judgement has to be rewritten, Back in the first years of the twentieth century, it was seen as ...  or it could be summarized as .....We also have scientific material from 10 or 15 year old   US Dept of Agriculture publications, which now has a similar problem.
 * I personally do not add such material without using quotes. (They should normally have a beginning and  quote on each paragraph, with an ending quote on the final one.) But I am not about to take on personally the correction of widespread sloppy practice.   DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Kirkus is no longer an RS?
After seeing your comment that Kirkus is no longer RS, I took a look at the noticeboard and saw this discussion: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_180. It's saying that "Kirkus Indie" is paid, but regular Kirkus reviews are not paid. Are you referring to this discussion or something different? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * yes. as a result of that decision, I no longer trust it for anything at all. I think that's the general view of most librarians I know. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply  here 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Obviously any "Kirkus Indie" review is non-RS. Do you think they are secretly paying for reviews on the "non-Indie" side? If so, how should the community handle this? Does it need to get any substantiation/proof that something untoward is going on? Have librarians written about the issue? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * no it's more that any publication that takes paid reviews is ipso facto non-reliable on any part of the site. this is similar to the way a newspaper that publishes advertorials tends to forfeit some of its reputation. There are indeed a few well-documetned exceptions: the NYT, WSJ, & Forbes all publish directory information on companies as well as genuine news. (I wonder how many of our articles use their directory information as evidence towards notability, btw.)   So I agree this  may be too harsh a judgement, but it is none the less the usual impression, which I share.   DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if a good way to deal with it is to consider Kirkus post-2009 a "less reliable" source. It can still be used, but if a particular book has a lot of different reviews and editors are trying to figure which ones make the cut, then perhaps Kirkus would not be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, that's one reasonable way to look at it. Another is that it adds to notability if there are some borderline sources also.  DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! That works well :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

combined &lt;ref> for multiple citations

 * WP:Citation overkill
 * WP:CITEBUNDLE

FYI --Jeremyb (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I had never noticed it here, but it's a fairly frequent technique in academic writing. I do not see how it is easily compatible with using wikidata for references. There would appear to be two directions: either to make a hack that would be able to parse such references, or deprecate this referencing technique and convert the existing ones manually, which will be easy enough, if someone can figure out how to find them.  DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Any &lt;ref> that has bullets (unordered list), multiple CS1 templates, or multiple bare external links should be suspect. (but if a single CS1 generates multiple external links that's ok. e.g. url && archive-url) Anyway, if there's a discussion started I'd like a pointer to it. Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I need some assistance, and no longer know how to approach this subject
About a year ago, you were involved with a discussion on Involuntary celibacy, I've always had an issue with this close reflecting the apparent anti-fringing pushing bias rampant on Wikipedia these days. Upon viewing this version of the article I cannot find any guideline violating issues. Tone appears neutral and sources are not only mainstream, but academic. The contentious history regarding the article could only suggest that another DRV is going to be long and difficult. Alone there is nothing I can do, but with help I was hoping to overturn the deletion of the subject. It appears that the NFRINGE noticeboards have become a pool of anti-fringe canvassing whose editors decisions are confirmed and unchangeable prior to any debate. Wikipedia has never been a place where only mainstream views are accepted this in itself is a violation of NPOV we have long sought to establish yet it appears the trend is growing and correlates with the editor drain we have experienced. My gut tells me this article is the first step to changing the environment ... what can we do? Valoem  talk   contrib  23:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've asked Coffee to allow the article restored with no bias for immediate renomination instead of DRV. Valoem   talk   contrib  23:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is more than one question here.
 * As for Fringe, I never liked the way we deal with  it, where we insist  from the first that it is non-standard and hammer at that repeatedly, We instead ought to present it as fully as necessary for understanding in its own terms, and then say what people think of it. We need to avoid giving any false indication that fringe topics are accepted, but we still need to avoid giving primarily   hostile coverage. If presented fairly, people will understand the relevance--that's the basic premise of an encyclopedia. We do not have to slant or censor, even by implication.  WhatI particularly dislike is our tendency to try to minimize the coverage of people associated with a movement we disapprove of (or alternatively of maximizing the number of otherwise reputable people involved to a trivial extent for the sake of denigrating the the individuals)


 * I consider topics such as this unusual, but not fringe. ("Unusual" is the most neutral word I can find.) Outside sex, some political and religious topics are strongly disfavored.  Others, equally unusual or far from the mainstream, but that do have a constituency  here, resist all tendencies to discuss them with moderation, rather than in a frankly propagandistic manner.
 * But sex is always the most difficult area. WP has for  long as I can remember been rather hostile to some forms of otherwise unexceptional  sexual expression. People have a remarkable ability to disdain those forms of sexual expression they do not engage in; there seems to be some human need to assign some sexual practices as acceptable, and others not, presumably in order to reassure oneself that one is oneself doing it "right" rather than being a victim of limitations, and this supposedly tolerant  community insists on resisting serious treatment of  things that are now but did not used to be considered subjects for open discourse.  For example, there's been  a  surprising amount of difficulty with articles on even widely-used sex toys.


 * The best way of dealing with such topics is first find as many additional references as possible. All difficult topics of any sort are best done by accumulating such an overwhelming body of references that he even the opponents realize.   has done a good job of it, but there's almost certainly still more to be done, especially considering the multiple uses. I think there are quite a range of different consensual and nonconsensual practices here, which have ended up in this one article because of the resistance to covering them individually.  I unfortunately do not really have the time to work on it. I recall there was a 1973 book with the title "SM: the last taboo" ISBN 9780818401787,  whose title I thought a good quick explanation of the problem in a few words. (the book itself is apparently a short anthology of stories, not likely to a usable reference)  This is 40 years later, and everything in popular culture considered, I don't think the taboo really holds. Except, of course, in WP, which, while it should be  the location for work on unusual things, is also the home of obsolete prejudices. People get very easily embarrassed about sex.  In  particular, some parts of the demographic  working on WP particularly easily gets embarrassed.


 * However, I do not think we have an editor drain. We merely have the expected transition from a exciting new project to something which may be still exciting, but is not particularly new. People will naturally stay here for only four or five years. Relatively few make it a career, or a life-long hobby. People try out new things, and then turn to others; our contributor base is always going to be dynamic. What I do hope is that we will come to attract a wider group than the typical post-adolescent white male geeks.  DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the encyclopedia has not increased--and in fact in someways regressed-- in terms of scope. I think removing subjectivity from the closing of AfDs is the optimal method. After the article is restored I assume Tarc is going to AfD it immediately, some input when that happens would be appreciated! Valoem   talk   contrib  18:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * RFC is up, comments would be appreciated. :) Valoem   talk   contrib  20:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said. In particular that the community tends to use FRINGE to rationalize attack pages, rather than merely documenting that their viewpoint is not accepted by mainstream science/medicine, using reliable sources. I'll take a look at your RfC as well Valoem. I also recently noticed that more effort has been spent on Victoria Secret than all of the articles under Category:Feminine hygiene brands combined (with exception to the one I wrote on Playtex). I found this strange, even given the gender gap, because so many women are interested in women's health, so I wonder if it is because people are too embarrassed to contribute. I looked up the Durex page after they did a presentation at a marketing conference. One of the biggest global condom brands and just a stub on it. Marginally notable supermodels and pornstars have more robust pages. CorporateM (Talk) 16:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * DGG, I did some research and commented there, however I wonder if you would still oppose the proposed article-title, now that I've shown an abundance of source material that uses the same phrase. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not oppose exactly, but I wonder whether it covers all aspects.  DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Looking back, I did not realize some of the implications of this title & related terms, or the actual characteristics of some of the people who associated with it . But my general comments on WP bias remain valid. ~)
 * (Looking back, I did not realize some of the implications of this title & related terms, or the actual characteristics of some of the people who associated with it . But my general comments on WP bias remain valid. ~)

Blackall and Yaraka Branch Railways
I assume you didn't mean publish Blackall and Yaraka Branch Railways to the Main space? JMHamo (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * there's a printed source given. I can't see it, but we should assume good faith that it does cover the material. Checking for copypaste would however require actually locating it. If an article has about at least 60% chance of passing afd, I think it should go in mainspace. Or did I miss something obviously fishy?  DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article needs clean-up, categories, more wikilinks etc, just messy. JMHamo (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly it does. As you know, there are several schools of thought: one is to get everything right before moving to mainspace; a second is to at least get them cleaned up to a reasonable extent extent before putting them in mainspace, the third is to put them in as soon as they have a decent chance of passing afd. I started out at the first, but then moved to an second, and am now close to the third.  The   part that takes experience is deciding if there is the basis of a sustainable article, & I try to look at that for as many AfCs as possible. I admit, tho, that this is rougher than even my usual standard: I usually at least add article sections; tho adding links is a good exercise for beginners,   I usually add enough basic ones to at least give the impression of  a WP article.   (But   there are a great many people who like to add categories.  I learned early on that the best thing for me to do about categories,  was to let them do it.)   I was going  too fast here, and you were right to call me on it.  DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC).
 * I subscribe to the get to as near perfection as possible before moving it from Draft school of thought. All too often the article is not found again (especially is there are no categories) and remains indefinitely in a bad state. A bad first impression for any reader coming across it. JMHamo (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason for my style is the experience that slow as it may be to get material improved in mainspace, it is even slower and less likely in Draft. As I understand it, the likelihood of survival in mainspace is the only actual guideline. It's good to do more, and each of us will balance whether we want to work in concentrated way with a small number of articles, or as a preliminary rescue of many. I've always done mostly rescue, with a few each week taken beyond that. I didn't expect it, but I find I like to work at the bottom.  DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Paid Editing (temporary solution)
...


 * The best course of action within existing policy is to have stricter requirements on articles in susceptible subjects, and for more people to participate in the afds. I would certainly propose a formal deletion reason, that borderline notability AND a mainly promotional article is a reason for deletion. (It is now, if we choose to do so, but a formal statement would make it easier to explain). I am saying this with great reluctance--for my first 5 or 6 years here, I devoted as much of my effort as possible into rescuing just those sort of article.  DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughts DGG. I don't like the situation either, but the quantity of COI violations that are done on a daily basis is so large (if the quantity of G11s and adv declines at AfC are of any indication) that something needs to be done. I'm just grasping at straws for a solution. Can't we just get Congress to grant the WMF subpoena power or at least file FTC complaints against some of these people.  /rant Winner 42  Talk to me!  17:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In a very few extreme cases, where people or firms have been identified, the WMF has taken some legal or regulatory action. I have some knowledge of whom to speak to and approximately what their parameters are.    DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Referencing systems
Hi David. I created Category:Referencing systems and rearranged or redirected some articles to fit the category. But it strikes me a category like this must already exist, and I thought you would be the best person to ask. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * working on it. See,for example the standard system for the Talmud and system for  Chapters and verses of the Bible.  DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. It's actually quite a large subject. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not forgetting Surah Peter Damian (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot see that anyone has ever written a general WP article on this. I'm not immediately aware of any general discussions in the librarianship literature, but  there are many further places to check--I think I recall there are discussions of its use in particular subjects in books on how to do research in history, etc.,  DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Village Capital'
Hi DGG, could you help me remove the advert flagged banner on the Village Capital page? It's been flagged for a while now, and the page seems like it's been improved. I'd love an opinion on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's standards, and if not, what I can do to fix this to remove the banner as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahlerbattle (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * as a start, remove the adjectives of praise. the substitute ordinary english for jargon like "across", and decrease the amount of dupllciation. Then I will take another look. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)  Still needed 

Wikipedia:Impact factors
This is your promised reminder that it would be helpful to have information about how to use impact factors in a smart way for evaluating sources across multiple disciplines. Impact factors is a new redirect to Scholarly journal, which is mostly a notability essay. I think you can safely usurp the redirect, if you don't want to come up with another name. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This would be really useful for me, if I'm understanding it correctly. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Really useful" is exactly my goal. ;-)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Afc etc
Hello DGG. I couldn't help but notice your comment on User talk:Timtrent, saying that submissions that are clearly non-notable should be marked as such and that the users should "discourage continuing" writing the article. What do you see as the best approach to dealing with users that submit Afc submissions that clearly do not have a chance of passing? I feel confident in determining notability but I don't want to be too harsh on anybody, especially new users. Many thanks in advance,  Aerospeed  (Talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I typically say: "In order to get an article, you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. If you can not find them, an article will not be possible at this time.  When you become well-known enough for there to be such references, then it will make sense to try again. "   The key word to avoid harshness is When.  Almost everyone understands, except some paid editors.  For those who do not, I sometimes go to MfD.
 * And it's crucial to say this as a short personal message, not as part of the boilerplate. People rarely read long boilerplate. I often modify the templated message after it is placed,  removing almost all of the surrounding text. I sometimes remove the color also, so it doesn't look like a template. Here's   an example  I've given up on trying to get the people who program this to improve the messages.  Even the custom message template still has too much unnecessary verbiage,  DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Writing articles about academics
I have created a number of articles about academics recently and I wanted to get some advice from you on how to write such articles, what should be included in them, etc. Everymorning   talk  17:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * forthcoming, probably tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I will get there, probably Saturday. In the meantime, look at Chad Orzel, which I deprodded. A full article in Contemporary Authors is proof of notability -- and that article usually lists books review also)It's available online as part of Gale's Literature Resource Center, available thru most public libraries  DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the only problem is I don't often edit from a library (unlike yourself, I imagine, since you are a librarian). But I'll keep that in mind the next time I stop by a library. Everymorning   talk  02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Most large city libraries have it available to library card holders remotely. You only have to visit once, to get a card.  DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Einstein
See WP:EINSTEIN. Expand, mock or delete as you see fit... Guy (Help!) 14:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I must have quoted it about a hundred times by now! It is almost always very effective at putting an end to absurd arguments for coverage. And if someone doesn;'t get the point, it shows very nicely their total lack of objectivity on the subject.  DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

A belated note...
It was superb finally getting to meet you! I only got to hear the last bit of your talk but was quite intrigued. I look forward to seeing you and the rest of the NYC crew next time around. All the best &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

National Book Award
... our WP article on National Book Award  explains it: hundreds of books get nominated--any publisher can nominates as many as they please. In the 2013 procedure, each of the 4 categories is winnowed own by a panel to a long list of 10, a short list of 5, and then a winner. The books on the short list are called Finalists, and get a prize; the winner gets a much bigger prize. By analogy with other similar awards, winning is notable, being a finalist contributes to notability, being nominated is not even worth mentioning. If the NBA site lists them as finalists, they're finalists--we usually regard the award site as authoritative. DLB's text is considered reliable--its headlines are, as usual with headlines, summaries & simplifications. Headlines never take precedence over the text, here or anywhere. USA Today, LA Times etc. are  dependent on the actual source of data, and less reliable. Neither of them is really a RS for published books. (The LATimes is a RS for film). This is one of the cases where the PS is more reliable than any report of it. What must be avoided is using any statements on Amazon or the publisher's sites as evidence for anything at all; they  both  often list awards & best seller status in the most positive terms they can concoct. Pre 2013, there was no list of 10, just the short list of finalists and the winner.  DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Essay
I want WP:ALTEXPAND deleted since it's undermaintained and horribly out of date. Expand was deprecated ages ago, so I doubt anyone's looking for "alternatives" to it anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , Perhaps then it should be expanded/updated and retitled; it was good material--we shouldn't lose it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Peter H. Lin
You may want to have a look at this article and to its history. --Randykitty (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * citations are 500, 270, 170, 150 ..., so he's notable, even allowing for the very high citation rate in this area. Even tho its an autobiography, what it needs is rewriting. Once upon a time, I would unhesitatingly rewrite all articles like this, but in the last year or so the number that need doing has escalated to the point where I only do it if it is in my area of interest, it is easy to do, and the article is not hopelessly corrupt otherwise. This articles is a summary of his outrageously self-praising website even by the abyssmal standards for such websites, http://www.drpeterlin.com/dr.-lin2.html , but not close enough to be a copyvio. It's not even a competent summary, because it leaves out some of the actual encyclopedic information, such as the dates of his positions, and makes no attempt to select the most important among the publications.
 * As we have now learned we need to do, I checked some of the refs. That he was clinical advisor to the bill is referenced to the Senator's web site, but isn't stated there. Some of the rest are also  ambiguous. It's implied he developed EKOS--he did not, a/c the references--he merely uses it. And a Reuters article referred to in this connection is not an article, but a press release on their site.
 * For an analogous case, by a known paid editor, see John Wesson Ashford, where I just removed the minor and stuff and unproven claims to be first in something. He, too, has very high citations.
 * I am holding off going further until I can decide what I want to do in such cases. I don't want to punish notable people for being naive enough to write their own article or use a paid editor, but I equally don't see why they should get priority for rewriting before all the even more notable people whom we are missing.  DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking paid editing more than autobio, given the contributors' names (and didn't look into notability myself, as I have no time right now). You're right that it's not egregiously promotional. I removed some of the minor awards. If only those paid editors could get it through their heads that it is far more effective to write a really encyclopedic, neutral article... --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be a group of editors. Look at the main editors and the other articles they have edited.  All related.
 * created 9/10/2015
 * created 9/9/2015


 * created 9/8/2015 (also see their talk page about an article that was speedied)
 * Also note that JeremyKai4077 and John.freeman.2010 have also the exact same user page.
 * Possibly some paid editing? At the least this group has a very narrow focus. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have previously encountered obvious but undeclared paid editing devoted to a particular medical specialty, and to other groups of individuals, or companies in the same field, where I assume it was a PR company specializing in the field or working for a trade association. I have frequently encountered it for people in the same or related company, where it has sometimes not been an outside PR firm, but the employer: sometimes in-house PR staff, but sometimes a department manager or the like acting on his own initiative.
 * Experience has unfortunately shown that most (but not all) people with experience in PR  cannot be taught to write a proper article, because they are so completely oriented to writing advertisements or quasi-adevertisements that they honestly cannot see the difference between that an a proper encycopedia article. Declared paid editors here whom I trust have told me they need to turn down most clients, because the clients even if notable will not accept a NPOV article.  DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio within WP
... second technical issue at hand is that I was quite serious about needing to edit the individual pages for WP:CWW and WP:Content forking to mention the G12 issue and requirements for the "shadow-bibliography" issue (that is, current requirements to exclude Wikipedia article references in the Bibliography section of articles system-wide throughout Wikipedia, but include the Wikipedia article references on the Talk page or dummy edits). Since I am meticulous about checking and verifying references in Bibliographies and have spent a great deal of time cleaning up dead links and restoring bad ones, then this is an important issue. If the deleted articles were mislabeled as G12 (as you suggest in your comments above), then the deleted pages should be at least re-labeled on the admin-only data base as to your stated preference and reason. If they are G12, then WP:CWW and WP:Content forking need some editing and additions to cover the G12 issue which is currently not mentioned on those two pages. If you need some of the other IP-hopping addresses for the IP-account above, then let me know here and I will try to get them listed for you. MusicAngels (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC) The G12 deletion in such cases can be applied, but usually the problem is corrected after a warning. As I said, I personally would not have applied G12 in this case, but the action was within the range of administrative discretion, and therefore I cannot say it was mislabeled. As I said above "Anything organized like WP will never be altogether consistent, or even always fair." The actually best way of dealing with the WP references is very simple: to remove the duplicated text and link the name. If you did think it necessary to include the text, in addition to the techniques listed in WP:CWW, there is also available a rather complicated technique, used often in history and geography articles, but relevant here also: WP:Summary style. I don't think anyone mentioned that possibility in the discussion--I am going to add a link to it on WP:CWW
 * There is no need to edit anything to say not to use WP articles as references--it's part of the Verifiability policy page--see WP:CIRCULAR DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was my understanding as well. This is the template that I had already prepared on my Talk page for insertion in the article, but I took one day off last week and the article was deleted without prior notice of closing. I think User:Fogettaboutit was also in agreement with you on this. This is the template as prepared on my Talk page and I was just going to fill in the names already listed in the Lead section of the poetry article. If you are saying that this will work then I am in full agreement with you and User:Fogettaboutit:

Is that what you are reading as being what User:Fogettaboutit had in mind. MusicAngels (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * At a different level, I have to say that using these copies was not necessarily a good idea in a general article. Too much of them dealt with the biography, and the reader of a general article would want to see about the literature. They would know enough to go to the article about the author for the bios. It would have been, as I just said, the actually best way of dealing with the WP references to remove the duplicated text and link the name. That people didnt like the article affected the action.  DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In stating that, you do realize that your suggestion is very close to the WP:TNT option if all of those biographical subsections are deleted. Since this is effectively equal to the solution previously put on the table by Drv participants, then I would like to offer to do the WP:TNT from the inside-out myself for the article. If you could restore the article as a Draft article under a new name "Draft:Poetry in the 21st century", then I will remove all of the biography subsections used in their entirety. This will effectively leave only the lead section and the outline structure for the rest to be then rewritten. This was only a "C"-class article anyway, and I would like to move forward with the option you are offering of straightforwardly removing all the WP:CWW biography material used and then rewriting/redrafting it along with WikiProjects as a Draft article. Also, I would mark the Talk page to inform other editors not to apply any WP:Content forking in the new article. MusicAngels (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability for bib databases
Hallo David and Randy, I wonder whether either of you has any pointers towards notability criteria for bibliographic databases. Polymer Library, formerly Rapra Abstracts has been PRODded as failing WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY (?). It feels to me like something which ought to have a WP article, but ... any thoughts? You two seem the natural people to ask, and by pinging RK on this page I hope to avoid duplication of any effort! Pam D  14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly? Nope, no idea. For the most important databases (like PubMed or the Arts and Humanities Citation Index) sources can be found without too much trouble. For the smaller ones, it's difficult. We have more database articles like this, none of them sufficiently sourced (just dependent sources for non-controversial info). In the present case, things are even more difficult, because "polymer library" is not an unambigous search term and gives many hits, but nothing really about this database. The links in the article don't help in establishing notability (the last one - STN - even seems to be a false positive as this library is not listed in the list of sources). Perhaps somebody from the Chemistry project would know of some sources? Curious what David will have to say about this. --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll add the refs I have at hand.  DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sierra Vista Mall
Do you think it's worth pursuing the close of Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (5th nomination) (by contacting the closer or possibly del rev)? The closer's argument is that there is no clear interpretation of what constitutes "local" vs. "regional" coverage (play to the semantics/letter of WP:AUD). I thought the arguments clearly stated how the mall's coverage was still of "local interest" (best evidenced by the fact of how its larger import could be unclear at all). – czar   14:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It rarely hurts to ask the closer, but I generally do not recommend taking a non-consensus close to Deletion Review, and, at Deletion Review, I rarely vote to overturn one unless it is truly perverse. .Just wait a few months and nominate again. But in any case the argument would be that publications serving the San Joaquin Valley are local not likely to have readers outside the valley; publications serving the State of California are regional, being of interest to neighboring states also; A major SF or LA paper read nationally is national. The Oakland Tribune is arguably more than local, and it is certainly outside the Valley, but Tribune Business News is not the Tribune. If one is going to get technical about wording, the rule is that at least one non-local source is needed, which implies that one source is not always enough.  In practice, the result of mall decisions depends on how hard they are argued. W
 * More generally, the majority disputed afd decisions hinge on the exact interpretation of the sourcing rule, and in most such cases a decent argument can be made in either direction. That's why I support going by objective criteria. In the case of malls, size. We have failed several times to get consensus on a general rule. If we did, and it were > 1 million sq ft≈100,000 sq metres, this would be deleted with no argument; if it were 500,000 sq ft it would be kept with no argument. In either case  the   effort debating it could be used for more important purposes.   DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think sqft is the proper metric (assuming WP:42 is not enough of a metric already). Malls in the Boston area will be low-sqft, and that goes triple for malls in Hong Kong.  By constrast, malls in Dallas or Minnesota (e.g. the Mall of America for a 'famous' example) will naturally have far more sqft, because real estate is cheaper and the dense-packed-mall-layouts are not necessary.
 * Something like average-visitors-per-week ... or maybe peak-weekly-visitors-during-the-year to account for the seasonal nature of malls i.e. december 25th ... would be a better metric than sqft, and similarly, annual revenues is a good proxy for visitor-count slash mall-importance. Physically large does not equate well with wiki-notability, but number of people involved (or as a proxy number of dollars changing hands) does a better job methinks.  If we do this, I recommend the visitor-count or dollar-count cutoff be low enough that at least one mall per tiny-city-of-population-10k is theoretically able to get a wikipedia article dedicated to the mall -- in the USA there are about 600 such tiny-cities, according to the KGB.  Or, actually that brings up another idea, see below.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

proposal: Businesses of Greater Clovis, California

 * Or... now that I think of it... we could just use *that* as the threshold: every city with a population of 10k+ people, such as Charlotte Amalie would be permitted by the hypothetical WP:NSHOPPING wiki-notability guideline to have a safe-from-AfD article called Businesses in Charlotte Amalie.  Such a 'listicle' would obviously include the 'major' malls (with WP:UNDUE being calculated based on sqft or visitor-count or most pragmatically revenues-per-annum since that latter figure is often available -- or simply in the usual wiki-fashion by the amount of ink spilled in wiki-reliable sources), as well as other major employers like hospitals/schools/banks, notable tourist traps, oft-reviewed restaurants, and such.
 * Obviously, these business-in-XYZ-summary-articles will be a goldmine for linkspam, so if we go thataway, I would suggest beginning with a Businesses in CityName, CountryName guideline that sets a temporary initial threshold of 100k+ population minimum for the associated metro area; we even have an on-wiki list of such areas, and for the USA the total as of ~2008 was roughly 267 such medium-cities of 100k+ people (total of 295 as of July 2014 data). Borderline-notable mall articles and such, could be merged inot the business-of-XYZ articles, with exceptions for Mall of America and other not-borderline-exceptions.  This temporary approach would cover about 90% of the states and territories in the USA... California where the Sierra Vista Mall is located tops the list with ~70 cities of 100k+ population in 2014:
 * 6+: CA TX FL CO AZ NC IL VA WA MI NJ OH TN
 * 4or5: CT GA KS MA MO NY PR AL IN LA NV OK OR PA UT
 * 2or3: IA MN SC WI KY NE NM
 * one: AK AR DC HI ID MD MS MT ND NH RI SD
 * zero: AS DE GM ME NI VI VT WV WY
 * Later, if that 100k+plan worked out, we could expand the threshold to include the additional 300 tiny-cities in the USA with 10k+ people through 99k people. Most of the states and territories exxcluded by the 100k+ rule, would be included by the 10k+ rule, including Charlotte Amalie, U.S. Virgin Islands which is the capitol and has 18k population nowadays.
 * If the scheme *does* work, it could be a good recruiting tool for the type of editor naturally-interested in shopping and tourist attractions (plus editors WP:COI-interested in the retail industry and microeconomics), as I mentioned at the AfD for the mall. Furthermore, this scheme could also be a good way to help decide borderline-notability-questions about startups and such with WP:PRESERVE in mind... rather than a binary question of bangkeep or bangdelete, we would (almost always since I'm proposing a geography-based scheme) have the additional option of merging Circle_(company) into the Businesses in Greater Boston article that was a spinoff from Boston.
 * And in fact, wikipedia already has Greater_Boston as a spinoff-list from Boston. So my proposal is that we expand that to be a spinoff-article that gives some details about the companies mentioned, then do the same Businesses of Greater CityName thing with 300 or 600 more cities, based on a population threshold of 100k+ or 10k+ respectively. Both thresholds would permit bangmerging Sierra Vista Mall into a broader Businesses of Greater Clovis, California article ... which at population 102k people just makes the upper threshold.
 * Anyways, food for thought here mostly. Ping User:Czar, User:Brianhe, User:Widefox, User:Kudpung, and User:CorporateM, who may have comments about this crazy proposal.  ;-)      p.s.  Not sure if DGG wants to host a big discussion, here on User:DGG talkspace, please let me know if you'd rather see this taken elsewhere DGG.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All I can see is the COI hell that would inevitably result from these sorts of lists (many more anons adding their businesses than caring about an esoteric guideline). More concretely, I don't think a NSHOPPING guideline would ever pass consensus—especially since I think (or hope?) we're moving in the other direction (away from content-specific guidelines) post-OrangeMoody. I'd also say that these types of articles are closer to directories in function (what Wikipedia is not). If any such article was necessary, it would need to extend naturally (in summary style) from the city/town article's "Businesses" section. czar  15:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I submit to you that we are already in the COI hell of which you speak. :-)      Orangemoody was a symptom:  the only way even wiki-notable companies like Countly can get their articles approved, is by spending months and months learning all the wiki-policies, or by hiring some kind of wiki-consultant for cold hard cash.  Because the COI-handling-facilities are so borked, we are quickly tilting the wiki-culture towards forcing honest disclosed-COI-editors into retirement, which will leave only the dishonest undisclosed bad apples.  Agree about avoiding WP:NOTDIR, and agree about extending the Clovis, California section in summary-style, but disagree that WP:NOTEWORTHY is that hard even for a reasonably tiny business to surmount.  The idea here is that the Businesses in Greater Clovis articles will become a place where
 * #1) we can put 'quasi-local' organizations like the Sierra Vista Mall, that will be better-watched by the anti-COI-hawks than a dedicated Sierra Vista Mall article possibly could, and
 * #2) we can also upmerge borderline-wiki-notable startups like Countly into Businesses of Greater Istanbul (or Greater Long since they have relocated to London nowadays), rather than let them molder in AfC as potential victims.
 * There is even the possibility that #3) companies who clearly pass WP:GNG, such as Circle_(company) and the other bitcoin startups, could be down-merged into a paragraph of the appropriate city.
 * I'm not arguing this idea is a panacea of bliss, there will still be plenty of COI-encumbered clueless wiki-beginners (not all of them IP-anons dern it! ;-) but I think it is a better way to manage things than the hardline approach to handling COI, which I will unfairly mischaracterize as ban-'em-all-and-let-the-great-jimbo-sort-out-the-wiki-bodies. See my argument at the AfD, that the mall-article (and the businesses-of-xyz even more so) could be #4) a recruiting-tool... this is an expansion on that, which will also double as a way to mitigate the COI-encumbrance-problem, by putting all the COI-eggs into one basket, as it were.  Whether it is a better idea, than what we are quickly moving towards, remains to be seen, but I do agree it is different from what we are quickly moving towards. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT business listing COI magnet, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Suggest AfC or some other place is better location for discussing new articles (no idea why I'm pinged). Widefox ; talk 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no way of preventing promotionalism in an encycopedia that permits anonymous editing. There is no way of preventing undisclosed COI editing either, for the same reason. We have been able to detect those we have, because they've not understood editing here well enough to avoid detection--and because all edits on borderline notable subjects of certain types clearly merit investigation. If we lower the standard of notability, it will be all the easier for them.
 * We are not in great need of people who will write on local subjects; we are not in need of people who will write on barely notable subjects. We are in need of people who can write on the clearly notable subjects that not enough people have been interested in, and the obvious area properly receiving current attention here is our continuing gender bias. But what we need even more are people who can rewrite the existing promotional editing on the clearly notable subjects. Almost all articles on major corporations and nonprofit organizations need complete rewriting. They've been contaminated by PR from various sources: the PR people who have written many of the articles, the volunteers who write like PR editors because they think that's what we want here, and the inevitably PR writing based on the RW sources being PR in the first place.
 * It's unfortunate that a few honest paid editors have gotten undue suspicion. But, quite frankly, I would very strongly support eliminating all paid editing whatsoever. Their fundamental mission is not really compatible with a NPOV encycopedia.


 * However, the proposition that we write as volunteers basic factual articles on all clearly notable organizations is a reasonable idea. If we do it, we shouldstart at the top, not see how far we can go to the bottom.  DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well expressed. The only substitute for the editorial supervision that Wikipedia of necessity lacks is to depend on high quality sources that do have editorial supervision that insists on fact checking, a skeptical attitude toward press releases, and disclosure of COIs. The most reliable of sources are characterized by strict insistence on declaring C.O.I.s, and even the appearance of C.O.I.s, and the use of press releases as no more than sources of questions to ask. The more time spent working on articles written from a source-rich environment (the truly notable), the better our instincts become for working in less information-rich environments. This should be the starting point for pulling out the effects of systemic bias by developing skepticism toward hand-outs and coi claims. (The NYT public editor has just written a piece on two Times published book reviews in which the reviewers assigned had undisclosed COIs).
 * Wikipedia needs properly sourced articles on corporations—for completeness; the same reason Wikipedia needs any article. But not so much that non-NPOV, poorly sourced articles need be allowed. Wikipedia has accessibility, reliability, and completeness to offer. Completeness is getting out ahead of reliability—this is a perversion of our goals. While it may be admirable to strive for completeness (an impossible goal), reliability back-stopped by adequate cites to WP:RS is existential. —Neonorange (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Inherited notability
....
 * I don't agree with the inherited notability argument above, or that notability can be measured by job title or award. Her notability can be established using the traditional method of evaluating sources, which in my view is the only basis from which notability should be measured. However, I don't question her notability, only whether her publication being nominated for this particular award is significant enough to warrant inclusion in her profile. I wasn't sure what you meant to say in this regard. Is the National Magazine Award known to the public? David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 02:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What I think is the correct way to look at inherited notability is that the fact that a person is notable, doesn't mean that everything they do is notable; even a notable person does many less important things. But the way a person becomes notable is by doing important things, so that someone who has done sufficiently important things is notable. The nearest formally recognized analogy here is  WP:PROF, where being editor in chief of a major journal is fully sufficient proof of notability. I would extend that to all media.  The National Magazine Award certainly wasn't known to me before I looked at this. Based on the information in our article, i would say winning one should certainly be included. For finalist, it needs the recognition of the Nobel or the Booker or the Academy Award.  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

General concept of whether there should be an article
...

Basic principle from WP:N--passing the GNG does not guarantee an article if it is more appropriate as a section in another article. And there of many other factors for whether an articles should be made: for example, avoiding the appearance of promotionalism or over-emphasis or just plain COI. The way to avoid these for someone notable for a single accomplishment/book/organization is whether to make the article on the accomplishment/book/organization or the person. (I usually see it for books and authors). If an author has written several notable but not famous books, I usually suggest that author, with sections for the books, which can be expanded if they're highly notable. If an author has one, I usuAlly recommend doing it on the person also, because if one books is successful, they are likely to write others. But if the book is much better known, which a first book may well be, then the book. This is a case where the restaurant is the better known. If you wrote one on the author also, it would duplicate much of the material, because you'd have to explain something about the restaurant. Such duplication looks like promotionalism, & can attract negative attention. If one just linked that part, the article would seem too scanty even if technically justifiable, and thus attract unfavorable attention.
 * Since there are many people here who can make a negative case against anything, and some who have a prejudice against any particular class of article or subject field,  the best thing is to not attract them. I deprecate the GNG altogether--for any disputed article I can argue either way whether any reference is substantially about the subject, whether it is truly independent, whether it is based on PR, whether it is in essence a true 3rd party source. I choose which way to argue based on the result I think will help the encyclopedia (by which I of course mean my vision of what will help the encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth
David, I just wanted to say that you are one of the biggest disappointments of this extremely disappointing ArbCom class. Resign. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you mean that I should have done more. While I have discovered I can not do as much as I intended, I think I'm accomplishing more than if I had left the committee. But if you mean that my effect has been a net negative, I think I have come to understand the problems we are faced with better than you do.    DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Question
Hey Dave, I wanted to know if you've ever been at the edge of retiring or ever thought of it? Considering you've been here for almost ten years as have I, there must've been times you had the impulse of retiring. I ask because I certainly have come and go in that time and although I sincerely appreciate this website and its concept (and I get hooked in periods here and there as I have recently, I always get walled by some eventual drama), the unnecessary and tiring drama simply seems to be unavoidable sometimes. Frankly, I think the fact several people have serious health troubles affects this sometimes especially if it's mental and psychological. Cheers, SwisterTwister   talk  05:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I never thought I'd say it, but I find that I am considerably more reluctant each day to start editing WP. In general the inevitable frustration of the way this system necessarily works  can be dealt with by moving from one area to another, but I may be beginning to feel that I've done as much here as I can. Perhaps the fault is arb com, where the public work is frustrating for we almost never actually solve any problem (at least, nothing we've done this year has helped much), and the private discussions which are the bulk of the actual work are not just frustrating but distinctly unpleasant for me, as I generally find myself in a very small minority--I had not realized the extent of the focus on narrow legalism rather than substance. I only remain on the committee in the hope that the new arbs will be more  willing to think in terms of benefit to the encycopedia, not in terms of what people "deserve." Of all the places in WP where IAR has a role, it is most relevant to the work of the committee, which has much greater powers of discretion than any individual admin. I suppose having said this much, I should emphasize that personally, I very much like every one of them whom I know--they're much more human outside the committee.      DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is wiki-kosher for arbs to name specific usernames, that they would like as new arbs, but if so, please write up a voterguide, DGG. Or if you prefer, just toss out the names you had in mind, or even, the generic criteria that you are looking for.  I too would like to see more IAR on the committee, although I also like the arbcom folks I'm familiar with, present company very much included.  But it is a hard and thankless job.  ( I will contradict my own flat statement by saying, thanks for doing what you can, it is appreciated. )  In particular, nobody wants to do the arbcom thing; it is a huge timesink to run, and like a super-RfA tends to attract mostly new critics and little praise.  Even if you "win" you tend to be the focus-point of much angst and many complaints.  Point being, DGG, if you are permitted by your wiki-honour to urge people to run, that you think would be good arbs, in whatever fashion, please do so.  Same goes for your compadres, if you can ask that they speak out.  There are some folks already announcing candidacies at WP:ACE2015/C, but Yunshui just retired, and none of the arbs up for re-election have yet put forth their names.  Because it has been such a hard year, this is an important arb-election methinks.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
Happy Easter, Main Page history/2016 March 27, with thanks for your ARCA statement, KISS! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

'Article cleanup?
Hey DGG, I was wondering about that article cleanup you wanted me to help with. I know you were going to send me an e-mail giving me examples of what needed to be changed, but I don't think I ever got it. I was wondering if you still wanted me to do it or not. It'll likely have to wait until after school lets out, since I remember you saying it was going to be pretty time consuming. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Old Portage Road (New York)
You saved this from CSD13. After a slight clean up / rename, it's in mainspace at Old Portage Road (New York). FeatherPluma (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for picking up on it--all I did was repeatedly decline to delete by G13 in the hope someone would see it. I'd be very interested to know how you  spotted it because one of  our recurrent problems with AfC is how to get the drafts worked on by other than the original editors.  DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also be curious to know the answer to how FeatherPluma found this topic. There are three ways to get drafts worked on by people other than the original editors:
 * Attract other long-haul wikipedians to work the AfC queue, by making the work more attractive (tried and failed... long-haul people who wanna work AfC already know where to find it)
 * Change the AfC-submission template, so that as soon as the author clicks 'submit' ... or even before they click submit ... they can see a selection of other articles sitting in the AfC queue, and the usernames of the authors/originators associated with those other AfC articles.  The template could explicitly suggest helping other good-faith wikipedians in the queue, by saying something like "Thank you for submitting your article to be reviewed!  The queue is currently N days and NNN articles long.  While you are waiting, you can help other people in the queue improve *their* articles, if you like -- this would be very WP:NICE of you, and might even speed up the queue."  This method is a slight variation on how User:Anne_Delong got started as a wikipedian, so it might even work, although of course there will be some aspect of the blind-leading-the-blind.
 * Something a bit more risky: mainspace anything that ought to be an article, regardless of the current state of the prose and the refs, then undelete it per IAR, when the inevitable insta-deletion occurs (N.B. this method only works if you are a sitting arb with the heft to make your undeletions per WP:ILIKEIT actually stick :-)
 * User:Kudpung also has put forth the option, of merging NPP with AfC, so as to automagically have the NPP folks help with tagging/rating/patrolling/etc the draftspace articles; whether this counts as "getting the drafts worked on" will partly depend upon the definition of "work" one opts to utilize. Certainly it would bring more *eyeballs* to draftspace generally and the AfC subset thereof specifically. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There are lots of things that haven't been tried yet. One more thing that could be done to attract people to drafts would be to alter the search engine software so that if someone typed "Son of Foo", and there was no article, but there was "Draft:Son of Foo", then instead of saying "You can start the Son of Foo article, it would say "You can improve Draft:Son of Foo and help it become an article" or some such. Or how about a "Today's abandoned draft for improvement"?  And there are more ideas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts.  But if you are going to suggest that editors improve each other's drafts, I would not make it automatic, but have a template that reviewers and Teahouse hosts could selectively drop on the talk pages of editors who appear to have made a good start - maybe to this page: WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate content for a university page
Hi, DGG. I was reading the page of Case Western Reserve University, and it seems to me that it's getting to be more like a promotional webpage than an encyclopedia article. Since you work with a lot of these types of subjects, maybe you can tell me if it's appropriate to include noted alumni in the lead, and a long list of academic rankings. I also don't understand the section called Undergraduate Profile. Am I just getting too fussy?&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost all university pages in WP are similar to PR. There are two types: when the whole thing is an integrated PR effort, or -- like here -- where particularly PR-like sections are added to specific parts of an acceptable basic skeleton. And a third type, where either the central PR or the PR forthe individual unitshave tried to write separation pages for everything possible. There was one university which tried to write an article for the expanded quonset hut they used for a placement center. & another for the building where they stored the maintenance equipment. Enthusiastic students can do just as bad, but they do it differently:I;veseen articles for individual floors in a residence hall, and I think once for an individual suite.
 * It is normal to include the 2 or 3 most famous alumni in the lede--the appropriate standard I think is world famous. That they put the computer entrepreneurs there instead of the Nobel laureates says something about priorities. The academic rankings, alas, are standard. At least they're in the proper location, near the bottom. I did some tinkering, but I've seen worse. If I fixed them all, I could do nothing else.   DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DGG for taking the time to look at it.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Women scientists
Hi DGG. In your detailed assessment of the acceptability of the article on Rhonda Patrick, you tell us "There is an unfortunate undercoverage of notable women scientists, and there are thousands of notable ones to include. We should fill this by starting from the most notable." Can you share with us at least a few of the names (or direct us to pertinent sources) as we are currently engaged in a virtual editathon on women in science. It is not unreasonable to expect at least a thousand new start-class articles on women scientists over the next few weeks or months. If you wish, you can add red links to WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women science and technology. If not, simply list names here or on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree this should be done. I am not sure I have time to do it. I can provide some guidelines for anyone wanting to do it. Note that they apply to women academics in general, not just scientists. I do not make a differentiation here in what I work on & perhaps you might want to consider this also.
 * (1) anyone who is president of a major college or university is notable. There are some obvious colleges to check here. tho some had male presidents in the past, and a few of the  most impt seem to be done already. Checking a few, Simmons hasn't been done.
 * (2) Anyone in the Institute of Medicine or National Academy of Sciences or NAEngineering is notable. There should be a number in the IOM and NAS at least, who may not yet have been covered.
 * (3) All people in all distinguished named chairs are always notable. The lists in some appropriate colleges should be checked,
 * (4) Though it isn't a formal rule, essentially all full professors at a major university have in the past been held notable-- except in some traditionally female-dominated fields such as home economics or education or librarianship. I consider this a major inequity, and an indication of true bias at WP. I'm prepared to defend any article on anyone in such a position. I've lost some of these debates in the past. I hope things have changed. Please let me know of any challenged articles here, because this part is a high priority for me. I'm going to revisit the afds I lost in the past.
 * (5). There a problem with the first women in X field in Y place. It's fine if X and Y are big enough. The first women chemist in a country, for example. If it's the first women faculty member in synthetic inorganic chemistry  in a particular state college,  then it's not so obvious.
 * (6). Academics are easy to screen, because there is a formal internal hierarchy. Grad students are almost never notable, post docs very rarely, asst. professors usually not, associate professors usually not tho I disagree with the consensus here and thing they should be, and full, almost always.
 * (7)In fields where books show academic notability, WP:AUTHOR can be a very useful & flexible criterion.
 * I also intend to try to verify the existing red links on that page, & I will leave comments.  DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these guidelines. I had the impression from your earlier comments that you had some specific names in mind. I see now that I was mistaken. Rather than spending your time on examining the notability of red links, I think it would be much more useful if you could add a few names to the red links on scientists -- or indeed any other of the categories listed under WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Tasks. Maybe you would even like to create one or two new articles yourself? It would be great if you could join the current editathon with at least one article based on your notability criteria.--Ipigott (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They are not my notability criteria -- they are my advice about what has been found to happen here in hundreds of afd discussions to be notable. The advice, as all my advice, is very conservative: it represents what should be safely notable and not challenged, not what might be possibly found notable in a particular discussion by strength of argument or chance of participation. My advice, not limited to this subject, is that people working on these projects should start out be choosing safe subjects, to avoid having a disappointing first experience. With sufficient experience, one can then try to stretch the boundaries a little -- but if one does that, one should be prepared to lose the argument without getting angry about it, or taking it as a lack of understanding on the part of the other participants. AfD can be unpredictable, and my predictive accuracy is not perfect, even when I know I'm right. When I know I'm testing to see if consensus has changed, I pick a point where I expect to succeed about 2/3 the time. To work here, one has to accept that not everything will go as it ought to.
 * If the question is what I think WP should include, that's another matter entirely.Almost since my start here eight years ago, I do not generally write articles I want to, but   rather  on those which need rescue. As you can see from this page, so many people ask for help with their problems that this is my priority. (And it's where I can be most helpful--I'm not particularly creative, but I do know how to fix things.) At projects such as editathons, what I prefer to do is to check that what people are writing is OK; I do it in person in NYC, and I'll do it here for anyone who asks me. Everyone here works on what they want to, and that is what I've chosen.  DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

h-index
I wanted to look up some h-indexs for professors on Google Scholar, what is the general recommend level for notability and how would I do this using google scholar? Valoem  talk   contrib  21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Look for their name in the form "FM Last", not their full name. The results will be in approximate descending order by the number of citations. Sort out those references that are to web sites, non-academic journals, newspaper articles, and the like. Th h index is the highest number where are that many papers with that least that many citations: r.g., if the counts  as typical for a probably not notable biomedical scientist, are:
 * 40, 35, 33, 30, 29, 27, 26, 25, 24,  22, 21, 21, 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13,12, 12, 12, 11, 10, 8, 5, ....... their h=16, because there are 16 papers that have been cited 16 times or more. I report these counts saying just that italicized phrase, rather than report it as an index ,because it is clearer in words..
 * But the h index can be deceptive. Consider another biomedical scientist, almost certainly notable:
 * 190, 180, 170, 60, 30, 10, 5, 5, 4, 3 .... . For them, the h=6.
 * But which is the more notable? The h index emphasises doing a great deal of not very important work, over people who do a smaller amont of extremely important work.  DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Button makers
Hey, because of L. Nichols Buttons AfD, I was wondering, "Does Wikipedia actually have any button makers of notability?" I didn't find anything, but I keep thinking that that can't be right! Thanks! --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 01:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There should be sources. It was in the NYC garment trade a distinctly separate industry.   There are probably sources on historic manufacturers also. But in checking, beware: most of the material I can find on WorldCat is about political pin-on buttons, not buttons fro garments, and most of the rest about buttons for military uniforms. But see: Newberger, Edward Louis. The Button Industry in the United States. Haworth, N.J.: St. Johann Press, 1998. and Jones, W. Unite. The Button Industry. London: Sir I. Pitman & Sons, 1924.  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, then I'm getting that Wikipedia has zero articles on button makers. Correct?! (Except that one currently being deleted, that is!) --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 19:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the NYC trade, the firms were mostly very small; I think it quite possible that none were notable. I have no knowledge elsewhere. Nut has several dozen elevant books listed in addition to the oes I already identified, in particular Jones, Nora Owens, and Edith Mattison Fuoss. Black Glass Buttons. Ypsilanti, Mich: University lithoprinters, 1945.   DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a fascinating and worthwhile topic. While a modern invention such as zippers will tend to have notable manufacturers associated with the project -- see, e.g., the Wikipedia article on the YKK Group -- the button is one of those objects that's long been so familiar that its history is obscure. Important button makers do pop up in conjunction with subjects that are notable for other reasons or as an incidental mention in a larger discussion; for instance, the button makers of Birmingham are mentioned in the article on Matthew Boulton, while the button making industry of Muscatine, Iowa is discussed in the page on that town, and the storied royal button maker Firmin & Sons has its own page, even if buttons get only a brief mention. (For more background on Firmin & buttons, check out its website . However, one could argue that separate pages could be made for companies or regional button-making industries such as these due to their significant historical impact; the Birmingham button makers were recently the subject of a book by economist George Selgin -- Good Money: Birmingham Button Makers, the Royal Mint, and the Beginnings of Modern Coinage, 1775-1821; the Arcadia Images of America series has a well-researched book on Muscatine's Pearl Button Industry; and Slate had a nice general overview of other key developments Maybe the folks at The Button Room museum, the National Button Society, or the British Button Society would be interested in buttressing the button history here, assuming they have access to even more research. In the meantime, I'm going to see if I can dig a little deeper on L. Nichols. Fashionethics (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Self citation
I got the impression you may be familiar with the McKinsey Quarterly and I know you are also interested in several related topics (self-citation COI, improving business pages, etc.), so I thought I would bring this RSN post to your attention in case you were interested and/or had an expert contribution to the topic. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I never knew it existed until this moment, but I'll look at the discussion. (I just read some of the articles, which seem excellent; their greatest virtue is clarity.) DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Articles" tend to focus on McKinsey's recommendations ("China should do XYZ"). This is good information for current or prospective clients to see what type of recommendations they make, but I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia and as an involved party in their own recommendations, that's a bit primary. However, if you click "Download the Full Report," those usually have mountains of data deeper into the report about market sizes, global economy, demographics, etc. that I think could be useful in improving core business pages. I don't think it's overly boastful when McKinsey claims in the report to have collected the best available data on the subject - this is what they are known for.  David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 01:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

subjective criteria and afd
hi david, I hope this is an appropriate space to ask about how to improve an AfD(if not please let me know !), and also to clarify your viewpoint on what is surely a subjective criteria. in regards to a comment that you made about inclusion in a museum collection being a reasonable criteria for notability. the guidelines here dont make a distinction as to the merit of a particular museum or gallery. suffice to say that i mostly agree with your assessment of the particular institution in question,you fail to back your claim with a reasonable argument. please advise so i can best respond thank you! I hope this is an appropriate space to ask about how to improve an AfD(if not please let me know !), and also to clarify your viewpoint on what is surely a subjective criteria. in regards to a comment that you made about inclusion in a museum collection being a reasonable criteria for notability. the guidelines here dont make a distinction as to the merit of a particular museum or gallery. suffice to say that i mostly agree with your assessment of the particular institution in question,you fail to back your claim with a reasonable argument. please advise so i can best respond thank you!Etidorhpaunderground (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

DGG''' ( talk ) 00:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)
... In addition to any particular prejudice against this particular topic,  WP can show a remarkable degree of prejudice against some sexual topics. Like many individuals and organizations, WP's willingness to accept such things is in principle very broad, but in practice is limited to what people are familiar or comfortable with.  DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * DGG| DGG]]''' ( talk ) 05:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I should mention that at the time I was rather naive about the motivation for writing this particular article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)