User:DGG/temptalk2016

Redirects becoming articles
Here you are my friend: Special:AbuseFilter/342. Let's look into re-enabling, it'd be good to have the log for review, even if they are mostly constructive. Cheers &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  20:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Turns out the page curation tool already picks up articles that become redirects. Not sure how, but I did some tests, and it works. This means they will appear in Special:NewPagesFeed. Now all we have to do is tackle that 1000+ page backlog :) &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  05:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion in a research presentation
Hi DGG. I've been building robust measures of productivity for Wikipedia editors. I'd like to use your edit history as an example when demonstrating the measures. See my write-up of the general measurement strategy here: m:Research:Measuring edit productivity. See my notes on your productivity here: m:Research_talk:Measuring_edit_productivity/Work_log/2016-01-18. TL;DR: It looks like your contributions to Wikipedia have been consistent since 2006. This stands in contrast to the bursty activity of me and Jimbo Wales. You've also contributed several orders of magnitude more productive content than I have (2.5 million vs. 17k "persisting words"). ;)

I'd like to present these graphs and the discussion you see beneath them at the January version of the mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase tomorrow. Would that be OK? --EpochFail (talk &bull; contribs) 18:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly you can include it. I note that when I retired from Princeton & LIU as a librarian, I discovered Wikipedia, and after a few months experience, consciously determined to make a consistent almost full-time effort. There are others in similar positions. For some of us in my age group, various life factors have caused periods of inactivity, but that has not happened to me. Anecdotally, I've seen that for some of our members in the 30s to 50s, periods of their activity in WP have coincided with periods of their unemployment. Analogously, it's long been known to librarians that increased library use is seen during periods of economic depression.
 * I have one question that is not clear from your graphs: is your data coming only from Article space? I ask because I would have thought that more of my activity in recent years has been elsewhere. And I am only 98th in the count of WPedians by number of edits. My rank in that table has risen only very slowly over the years DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC) which would confirm your hypothesis that the other highly active editors are also consistently active. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm only looking at article space, but I would imagine that your work on drafts would eventually lead toward article space. Generally, measuring productive contribution outside of articles is very difficult, but something that I hope we'll have some good new thoughts about.  E.g. productivity on templates may be related to template usage.  Talk page productivity would be much more difficult to track, but I imagine that we can at least flag obviously unproductive discussion posts automatically using machine learning and natural language processing.
 * I haven't done any sort of ranking for Wikipedians by this measure of productivity yet, but when I do, I'll get back to you. --EpochFail  (talk &bull; contribs) 22:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * for Drafts, when I accept an article that needs fixing, sometimes I make my edits on the Draft and then move to mainspace, but equally often I will move to mainspace and fix it there (especially if I want to use visual editor, which I prefer for finding the correct internal links to add)  DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft prod instead
Ok, it looks like the G13 thing is going like the prior G13 discussions so I say we think up something new. What about a draftprod idea? It's suggested. It's not a speedy but it'll clear MFD through a different process and I think it can cover most people's concerns. Something like "any userspace or draftspace draft of an article that hasn't been edited in six months where the creator hasn't made an edited in the last year can be proposed for deletion if after seven days an admin determines that the draft has no likelihood of becoming an article." Any draft can be obviously removed by anyone and there's MFD then. Just off the top of my head but one year is WP:STALEDRAFT so maybe one year not six months and make this part of the STALE deletion process. I'm not sure where this complexity of 'what is a draft' is coming from but that's the only problem I'm still seeing. It's enough multiple parts here but we can suggest the idea first and then do a separate exceedingly complicated broken up RFC to offer the idea. What do you think? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strike this whole idea. It's not necessary. MFD, while not ideal, I think could handle this. I may suggest it again if MFD becomes unmanageable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In figuring out what to do, we need to consider the purpose. There are three basic classes of material
 * 1. Material that might significant contribute to a plausible article. In my opinion, this should never be deleted regardless of time, or whether the editor is active. What we need to do with these is to make findable. My main concern with these is to make sure that none of these get deleted. I've been spending half my time on that for a year now, and I would oppose anything that makes this harder.
 * 2. Material that is abandoned but harmless, and will never make an article. There's been a lot of activity here lately--I regard this as a rather low priority. When we do clean up, it's   more important to clean up the areas of Draft space and WT:AfC/ , which are joint-use non-private work areas, than Userspace or User talk space, which can accommodate a little  harmless junk because it is not in the way. Cleaning up user/Usertalk space is in my  mind an extremely low priority. The priority is in removing stuff that is harmful, and fixing what is erroneous or outdated. That probably amounts to at least 1 or 2 million articles.
 * 3.Material that is harmful and shouldn't be here. The main types of that are advertising and copyvio. G11 & G12 is what we need here.

The main use of MfD for Draftspace is removing material that keeps getting resubmitted but will never make an article and isn't bad enough to be called G11.

The current attempt to remove variant incomplete article versions that do not contain harmful material is in my opinion unnecessary. It would be more important to check them to se if there is material there that would be useful in mainspace.  DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Campaign to Keep It an Encyclopedia, not a Business Directory
Can you take a look at these two: Stellar (payment network) and Pure Storage? I don't think they warrant being in an encyclopedia. What's the criteria for a company having an article in Wikipedia? It has to be remarkable in some way, right? Chisme (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * not exactly. It has to meet the WP:GNG, as explained further at WP:CORPDEPTH, but any individual case is decided at WP:AFD according to the policy-based consensus of the Wikipedians present. The general view is that the GNG is not met by routine announcements and Press releases,  but the interpretation of this is often disputed. I personally sometimes take a stricter requirement for this than does the consensus, and the consensus is what decides.
 * In the two cases you mention, Pure Storage is on the main board of the NYSE and therefore almost certainly willl be considered notable enough for an article; Stellar seems to have gotten a good deal of technical press about its algorithm, and would almost certainly qualify also. Both articles are however quite promotional, and in need of major improvements.
 * I see you have been trying to fix articles on some similar companies. I consider AppDynamics borderline; Shyp borderline at best though there is some  recent material that might make me think otherwise;  I listed Stripe (company) for AfD as not notable; Sidecar was never notable, but it did get some press; I'm going to try to merge it.  DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that. I don't think Wiki should be naive. There is a certain cache about having your company written up in an encyclopedia, but I don't think Wiki should be used that way. Chisme (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My strategy in raising our standard, is that the key step is to deal with the material which clearly does not meet our current standard,and that will clearly be deleted at AfD. In my experience, AfD rather than policy pages is where the action is, because it's how we interpret the rules that makes the actual difference . Removing that raises our average, and we can also proceed with trying to convince the community to raise it further--that is best done by trying to see with a few AfDs just what the consensus is, and how fast it is changing. In arguing, I try to lead a little; in judging, I stay with the mainstream; in giving advice, I try just to say what the current practice is and try to emphasise that it is not I who makes the decisions.   DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was at a business meeting in Silicon Valley a couple months ago as part of a freelance PR team. I was the writer. The subject of Wikipedia came up. "Can we get an article for our company?" This kind of thing goes on a lot. Wiki really ought to lay out criteria about when a company or business belongs and when it doesn't. Chisme (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, but Wikipedia goes by consensus, and unfortunately consensus has been to rely primarily on the GNG. I've been trying to convince people of the absurdity and inconsistency of this for 7 years now (my first year here I was naïve enough to believe in it). The way to do it is to argue in that direction at enough AfDs that people accept the idea. Perhaps it will only take a few years more. I'm a librarian--librarians think on that time scale.  DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)



IP keeps reverting
DGG - an unregistered IP keeps adding information about the history of wireless technology and promotional company material to Theodore Rappaport which is supposed to be a BLP. It's not unlike attempts to discuss surgical procedures and devices in a BLP about a doctor. There is no way for me to discuss the situation on the IP's talk page because there isn't one,. Suggestions? BLPs fall under DS and I'm certainly not going to edit war with an IP who is proving to be problematic. Atsme 📞📧 04:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did some editing there. And I left a warning. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - they're back and the added call numbers which I deleted thinking that's personal information not unlike adding somebody's phone number, right? I don't know if I should contact oversight or just advise you so you can redact the numbers.  I'm concerned about posting the diff here but I think something needs to be done ASAP.  Also, can you semi-protect the page so I can finish editing without worrying about personal information being added again?  Thanks in advance.  Atsme 📞📧 02:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A year later, this is still a problem. ~

Note about professors
The section with this name on your user page may have a problem, or maybe it's just me. I think you may mean "not likely to be notable". I call it a typo, but am not willing to change it on my own, since it reverses the meaning of what you are saying. Lou Sander (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I said "People unfamiliar with the academic world may not realize that even a full professor at a major university is very likely to be notable" and indeed I do think that any full professor at a significant institution is very likely to be notable; I would say further than I think any full professor at a major research university is always notable. And in fact every one of them discussed at WP in the last 5 or 6 years has been found notable, with the exception of those in some special fields about which there is prejudice. Those at institutions less that major research universities,  have sometimes been found  not   notable, but not all that often.   DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)  Was my wording unclear, or do you disagree?  (perhaps there's some lack of clarity in the word "even" -- by which I mean that at ranks of assistant and associate professor, they in fact are not usually considered notable here.)  DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC).
 * It was just me. I misread it, thinking that you said/meant "I thus sometimes delete..." Folks like me might benefit if you said "they thus sometimes delete..." IMHO it would also be clearer if the "even" were deleted. (But I'm just one guy out of the many who would read that paragraph.) Lou Sander (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lou, I will rephrase accordingly.In generaly, the author is not the best guide to whether what he writes will be unambiguously understood.  DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

business plans
Hi David. I enjoyed our chat yesterday at the NYC meeting. Please remember to give me a call when you care to discuss business plans and how I might provide some help in that area. Cheers, Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterNYC (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry I didn't "sign" my last post. Looking forward to hearing from you on my help with business plan reviews. Thanks! OtterNYC (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A+F Nebraska WikiWarrior Editathon - new page creation issues
Hi David -- wanted to follow up with you about some of the new page creation issues that occurred during the recent Art+Feminism WikiWarrior Editathon at University of Nebraska-Lincoln. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Here's the info pasted below. Draft are not as much of a concern as the rest of these. Thanks for addressing some of this. -- Erika aka 00:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Alphabetical by first letter
 * Articles created
 * 1) Bernice Slote --  -- Good job, Orphan, NO references notable - DGG
 * 2) Edith Lewis --  -- GREAT JOB!   notable  - DDD
 * 3) Eliza Pickrell Routt --  -- too short  notability difficult to determine - DGG
 * 4) Karen S Kavanaugh Miller --  -- Proposed deletion, not patrolled
 * 5) Khenmo drolma --  -- notability issues, no links, orphan  notability  impossible to determine--DGG
 * 6) LuAnn Wandsnider --  -- Proposed deletion, not patrolled notable, but inadequate article- DGG
 * 7) Lucile F. Aly --  -- person is notable. too short, no links, orphan  In my opinion prob. notable under WP:PROF but the current article does not show it Still uncited.  DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC) DGG  
 * 8) Maude Radford Warren --  -- notability issues notable, but needs expansion to show it--DGG
 * 9) Nebraska Innocence Project -- -- Great start! -- moved from Sandbox  Still at AfD-- DGG 
 * 10) Tricia Raikes --  -- notability issues, Conflict of Interest (they are sponsor?)  kept at AfD, but I will renominate -- DGG
 * 11) Women's Voices Now --  -- not even a stub (2 sentences)
 * 12) Ying Lu --  -- notability issues  decent citation counts, tho mainly for work done as a PHD student--notability uncertain - DGG
 * DRAFT
 * 1) Draft:Ada College --  -- too short, not patrolled, not enough to review and WP:TOOSOON- DGG
 * 2) Draft:Anita Sarma --  -- needs work to turn into a stub ) and WP:TOOSOON- DGG
 * 3) Draft:Female Health Foundation --  -- too short, two paragraphs, not patrolled, not enough to review & Promotional - DGG
 * 4) Draft:Virginia Faulkner --  -- Submission declined, possible copyvio / copying, needs work (prob. notable, deserves further work - DGG)

I hope to get to each of these one by one over the coming week.  DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Chemicals
Well this closed keep saying that it is "chemically notable." You never dealt with what I said - that the only reason people care about that chemical is its potential use as a drug. Never responded to that. And I find that to be just disrespectful. And with this "keep" based on your argument - which seemed to me to almost willfully ignore that key thing (the use of the chemical as a potential drug) - you have just shut down an effort I was about to undertake to clean up a particularly filthy part of Wikipedia - a whole slew of articles about putative "nootropic" compounds that people write shitty Wikipedia articles about as part of their online community - they make these chemicals or buy them from reagent companies and actually take them. I will walk away from that effort now. I just wrote this out of protest; I am not really looking for a response to let you know I am upset, but you can of course reply if you like. Perhaps there was some larger issue at stake for you as well. But still, your not responding to the core of my argument was frustrating for me. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There are, as you say, quite a number of such articles, and most of them need editing. I would gladly work with you in improving this content if we could agree on the principles that apply. 1) All chemical compounds  that have been not just reported once but discussed further are notable, and the  discussions need not necessarily be in scientific articles.  2) MEDRS is irrelevant to the chemical portion of articles on actual or potential therapies.  3)MEDRS refers to claims that something is a therapy, not that something might be a possible therapy. Decent sources are still needed, but secondary reviews in the sense of MEDRS are not required. 4)What I would suggest does need cutting is the detail in many articles  on the phase I trials, and possibly some of detail on the phase II trials 5) I see no reason to avoid covering substances in illicit use. This is an important application of NOT CENSORED (I would in fact think just the opposite, that we have an obligation to do so.) The "larger issue at stake" for me is indeed NOT CENSORED, and I consider it as a basic policy that over-rides any guideline, and that we only even consider conflicts  when they are to other equally basic policies such as BLP or NOT INDISCRIMINATE (and, to some extent, the less basic parts of WP:NOT, such as NOT TABLOID and NOT NEWS)      DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is where I feel like you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't argue with you on the chemistry thing at all - not even at the AfD. I agree that primary sources are OK for chemistry - that is a "predictable art" as they say in patent law.   The place where you and I really part ways, is the "possible use"/"potential therapies" aspect, which comes down to biology.  "Possible" is how garbage happens in Wikipedia. "Possible" is what altmed shills, pharma drug rep shills, people trying to boost the stock of biotech  companies, and nootropic knuckleheads, blah blah use to try to wedge garbage into Wikipedia.    "Possible" is how almost every search result here happens.  Garbage.   It is not a matter of NOT CENSORED it is a matter of "accepted knowledge".  In the biological sciences, a research paper is absolutely not accepted knowledge.  The primary scientific literature in all sciences but especially in biology is where scientists talk to each other as they grope toward understanding. That is why reviews are particularly important for biological content in WP.  They give us the best indication of what is "accepted knowledge" at any given time. On top of that, there are literally hundreds of research papers discussing, say, "potential" diagnostics for Alzheimers.   Hundreds.   How in the world do we decide which of those to discuss in Wikipedia?  Should we rely on which university PR office does the best job shilling theirs?  Ugh.
 * Related to that are issues of WEIGHT. By relying on secondary sources to guide us in discussions about weight (which is the letter and spirt of NPOV), we don't talk about every phase I trial of every drug or every potential therapeutic.  The literature guides us, not personal preferences or external interests.   It is essential for helping us keep the tidal wave of promotional garbage out of WP about health.  And there is so, so much.
 * If you would be willing, I would be happy to talk - to listen actually - to try to hear the deeper logic under what you are saying. Because right now I don't get it at all, and what you are saying has terrible consequences for many, many articles, in my view.  And I hope you would be willing to listen to me.  Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * From my userpage, written many years ago:
 * I have "an extremely strong opinion that the uninhibited free play of ideas is essential to a free society and to humanity in general. (I basically follow J.S. Mill in this.) ... I take pride in being what some call a First Amendment Absolutist, and I mean it in the literal sense. We are responsible for presenting information accurately and honestly, not for what people will do with it. The way to prevent them from interpreting it wrong, is to present it better, not to conceal it. If anyone thinks I have deviated from that position, I'd like to be told, so I can correct myself."
 * I am consequently very dubious about using MEDRS and related guidelines, such as FRINGE. They are needed because of the continuing assault against honest  judgment by superstition and commercialism, but they should be used narrowly  to clarify what is the accepted status of what is presented as  knowledge. We must  not use them to avoid covering a subject in all its aspects. The fundamental assumption behind the creation of a crowd-sourced encyclopedia is that all people are able to judge, if they are given information. They are even able to judge what is reliable information, if the background and  the principles of judging are explained properly. It is then their individual responsibility to decide; it is not ours.   Those of us who understand science do not have the right to decide which information to give: if we both know science and know how to present it, we will be understood correctly.  That is the true meaning of WP:EXPERT.  DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * all i can say to that, is you are in great company with every tinfoil-hat wearing nut job who comes to Wikipedia. I can't believe you of all people play the "censorship" card.  My god.  Here is where, in my view, your perspective on this is not just a little, but profoundly unwikipedian.  We are not a community of experts.  We are a community of nobodies.  It is not for you or me to judge that primary source over this one.  We rely on the published literature to adjudicate as much as we can.  That is what happens in reviews; which are essential for adjudicating the biomedical literature.  The Wikipedia world you depict is a Mad Max one where anonymous editors duel based on their putative expertise.  I don't want to edit in that Wikipedia, and I don't.   Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I also said on my user page, that among my biases was a
 * "distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science ... I often vote to keep articles on these subjects, because the advocates of orthodoxy here sometimes seem to be even less reasonable than the quacks--and because I think the best way to expose quacks is to let them state their views plainly."  DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not saying you believe in quackery. I am saying that you are standing with the quacks.  I have neither the time nor desire to debate with woo-pushers in Wikipedia.  Applying high sourcing standards  - what OR, NPOV, and VERIFY call us to do when we edit at our best - not only drives high quality content but provides a way to very quickly shunt aside woo-pushers' efforts to make Wikipedia into a Madmax world (both in content and in endless talk page battles) - and likewise helps us keep pharma reps from pumping up content about their drugs.  Everybody wins when MEDRS is applied consistently to content about health, including - and especially including -  "possible" applications of X.  Everybody loses when we lower sourcing quality (including the content that is not generated when having endless debates with people trying push content based on low-quality sources).  It is not about censorship at all.  That is orthogonal to the heart of the issue. Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * so, so many edits like this, every day here. Reverting that is not censorship. It just isn't.  ack. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What caused me to write that essay was my experience in working on the article on Intelligent Design. The people defending the ID side of things were defending it very weakly,not being aware of the sophistication of some of the modern proponents. I attempted to present these, in the classic model of WP:Writing for the enemy; arguments which   are not at all that easy to refute with the usual high school-level of  biology.  I was accused of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, hypocritically pretending to be an proponent of science.  Being new here, I decided it was hopeless and left the topic, and have not followed the argument since.
 * There are nonetheless several things I think we agree on: the necessity that you have just mentioned of writing good positive content, the overemphasis of early clinical trials (personally, I would attack first the problem of the notability of drug development firms that have never brought a product to stage III). I have learned in WP that people with quite different perspectives can nonetheless accomplish a good deal by simply working where their interests intersect, without necessarily ever coming to terms with the differences.  DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am completely with you on the ID thing. I made the effort to try to edit neutrally on the acupuncture article, which is a battleground between woo-pushers and woo-fighters and the resulting article is crappy.  Acupuncture and some other alt med methods have actually become mainstream to help manage (help manage) otherwise unmanageable conditions, like cancer pain.  Some of that is just ugly pandering by the medical establishment to make money, but some of it is evidence based; there is now decent evidence discussed in reviews and textbooks that some alt med methods help where standard medicine doesn't (mostly pain or nausea, where one would expect a placebo effect to play a big role....) but it is what it is.  So no argument with that effort.
 * Anyway, I know that you have adjusted your thoughts about NOTABILITY in light of the promotional pressure that WP is under; in my view raising source quality accomplishes the same goal in articles that already exist, and should also be taken into account in deletion debates. That was why I was especially curious to see how you would respond on the AfD on this drug candidate.  Anyway, I hear you desiring to move this to concrete discussion about actual content... I will suggest some things later today.  Thanks for putting up with me. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

business plans follow up
Hello David. You must be terribly busy. Kindly recall our conversation about business plans last week at the NYC Chapter meeting. I am eager to be helpful on this as you see fit. I would also like to follow through with you on the Renee Radell draft if that is still the best approach. Please let me know if you are receiving my messages. All the best, Kevin OtterNYC (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Nice to hear from you David. I was hoping you would reach out. You may have noticed that I had some suggestions from Jytdog about my draft (draft:Renee Radell) and he made a talk page for it. He thinks it has notability so if there is anything I can do to further the process, please advise. I could probably add some online links to some of the sources, since I have seen online archives at a few of the major publications. And, as you may remember, I have the hard copies of the original art reviews. Also, would like to connect on the business plan concepts we discussed a couple of weeks ago. You have my number and happy to provide it again if you send me an e-mail at ktrgeneral@gmail.com. Looking forward to our conversation. I will be working at home all weekend so feel free to call. Cheers, Kevin OtterNYC (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Need some advise about finding a source
Medical articles are not my strength and I usually deal in history, pop culture, computer science and general sciences and whatever I come across. I do not sign in as I do not wish to ever see my watchlist again. It has cost me thousands of hours of life and lost me income. I am having trouble finding a review article (they are preferred but not required) that Jyt is asking for but can find plenty of other non-reactionary doctors and researchers opinions on the subject along with text books that have included the primary research results. Do I use a Request for Comment to draw in other eyes for a deeper source search or some other method? So the article is Talk:Diphenhydramine and you can see the edit history for current discussion. Thankyou for your advise. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to add strong content about anything in WP, but especially about health, you need a strong source. You want WP to say that this drug causes dementia, so you need a very strong source.  I would have been happy to help you but you chose to argue with me.  I am glad you are asking someone for help. That is a good thing. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say cause, and the source doesn't say that either I said "greatly increase the risk of developing". That wording is too strong and should be modified to "associated with a higher risk of dementia".  And you started combativeness with weasel words and implications that I have no experience. Jytdog, this seems a bit stalkerish to come here to this page and insert yourself into this discussion.  I didn't request your help here.  97.85.173.38 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * jytdog did not come here in the expectation I'd endorse his position--there's some rather frank back-and-forth between the two of us a little above.
 * I'm quite a skeptic regarding the literature.  I know it's been estimated most individual medical research papers are wrong. What I don't think MEDRS adequately recognizes  that so are most critical reviews and consensus statements--this is very easy to prove: look at the last 30 or 40   yrs of consensus statements on diet, or blood pressure, or lipids, or anti-depresives.  There is rarely reason to expect the current consensus will be better than prior ones.   And medical textbooks have a unique style of writing: they typically include in their references everything, not just the material the authors think actually correct. I therefore think that MEDRS should be used in a more restricted manner, and that information based on multiple primary sources does have to be considered. I see no reason why medicine should be different from other fields, where a fair statement might be that no sources are wholly reliable, and , if used appropriately, no sources utterly useless. Mechanical rules for inclusion do not do justice with the very wide spectrum of reliability in almost any subject.
 * What the spirit of MEDRS should be used for, is to a/eliminate the totally idiosyncratic reports, b/distinguish downright quackery c/ lead to proper use of qualifiers in wording. (That said, I think that wording alone cannot clarify adequately; I don't even pay attention to judgements not accompanied by actual numbers, and no numbers purporting to show probability  without sample sizes and with an explicit basis for how the sample was taken. What is needed is numerical literacy--which fortunately can be found even among those who do not actually have training in formal mathematics.     And wording alone is helpless against the tendency of people to  interpret what read according to what they want to believe. what they want. Responses to pharmaceuticals, and in particular psychoactive pharmaceuticals, have a tremendous variation. I'm not a physician, but in my experience good physicians in practice recognize this. Everyone has anecdotal reports, so there's no point adding my own to WP.


 * As for the actual issue, I think a compromise wording can be found. But that's what I usually say.  DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

AfD
...


 * As for my actual opinion of the article, and my view that the efforts for exclusion of articles about nonstandard medicine of even the most absurd variety is an example of bias and prejudice and failure of NPOV. see the AfD. The best way of showing the true nature of this particular topic is to let its adherents speak for themselves. I didn't believe how ridiculous it was from the heavily censored WP article, under I read their own descriptions. Censorship is counterproductive, here and everywhere. QG, you wish people to read only what will do them good. This is paternalism and directly opposed to the spirit of NPOV and free inquiry. If you wish to express your biases ( a bias which in this case I happen to share quite firmly), it should not be on WP. To make clear my position on the subject, I and most other science editors left Citizendium in large part because those in charge they were insisting that Chiropractic was a valid branch of medicine. Fortunately, at WP nobody is in charge, and I will help defeat all attempts to use it even for the most wholesome promotionalism and propaganda.  DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES compromise
Hi,

I've seen in a few places you've mentioned WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (or the idea behind its practical use) as "the compromise". It sounds like there's some backstory there that I don't have.

To me, just seeing that description, it seems like the opposite of a compromise. In other words, who is it a compromise between? If it's between those who want to apply WP:N to school articles and those who do not -- or between those who believe sources always exist for schools and those who do not -- then it seems to fall squarely on one side. A huge number of AfD debates could go either way depending on participation and tenacity, but we don't say "this side is always right from now on" without there actually being consensus for a guideline to that effect doesn't sit right. Am I missing something? Maybe what I'm missing is just all the drama that led to the rule in the first place -- that if I went through that I, too, would breathe a sigh of relief even if a sort of IAR guideline-not-guideline was required? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , it is a compromise between those who wanted all schools to be notable, primary schools included, and those who wanted to limit even secondary schools by whether or not there were practically findable references to meet the GNG guideline. Back in the days before the compromise when I was new here (2006-2008), I and a few others routinely defended every elementary school article, on the basis that it was significant to the community, and that if one had access to the local sources, one could always find references significantly discussing the planning and construction and zoning of the school. Additionally, quite a few of even the primary schools had two or more notable alumni and these would usually lead to coverage also. the arguments over whether the references were substantial were dependent mainly on how hard people argued, and there were at that time some really radical broad inclusionists way beyond anything contemplated nowadays, who were willing to argue very hard indeed. There were, correspondingly, some very radical deletionists (or more exactly, narrow-inclusion proponents), who at times were defining substantial to mean that the subject had to be the main point of the reference, and unless two entire substantial magazine articles or books were written about a subject, we shouldn't cover it. The  effort needed for arguing about a single school could mean hours of work for half a dozen people. AfD decisions those days were really erratic.
 * At that time, I felt WP should be very comprehensive with respect to local notability, partly because of the readers, partly because it was a good place for beginning writers. I changed my mind about this over the last few years, because too many local institution, both non-=profit and business, were being used for promotion, and I came to realize as I became more involved with paid editing problems, that this factor was the most important. (Schools are very easy to remove promotion from, without the need for actual rewriting, and the amount of vandalism there used to be ton those articles is much less with the edit filter.)
 * You see, Notability is deliberately not a policy, because we can really set the dividing line anywhere we please. We make the encyclopedia, we make the rules, we can include in it what ever there is consensus for. This is a new kind of encyclopedia , and we're not limited by what used to be the limits of paper,or the convention that an encyclopedia was mainly an academic reference. It doesn't much matter if we have articles on relatively trivial subjects, as long as we can keep out the really dangerous content, which is promotionalism and POV writing.
 * I do feel that using the GNG for a dividing line is absurd--it was a really stupid guideline in the first place, because it made inclusion depend upon the practical availability of certain particular kinds of references to the sort of writers we have. We are limited by Verifiability, and that gives an unavoidable bias in some areas, but we shouldn't add to it. I have always thought any rational meaning of notability is a function of the subject, not of the references.
 * I also feel that consistency matters: people should be able to predict what they are likely to find in the encyclopedia, both what type of subject, and what type of coverage. This is very difficult to achieve with our method of decision making, but fortunately the range of variation is smaller than it used to be. One of the reasons it matters is to give a impression that the encyclopedia is prepared by serious people who know what they're doing. There are other practical compromises of this sort. One is PROF, which as applied means we cover all full professors (Though rank is not part of the formal guideline, the decisions in practice follow the full vs. associate line very closely.) I think this is the wrong cut-off, and it should include all tenured faculty at universities, including the Associate professors. I could give along argument why, and in my early years here I gave a great many. I usually lost, however, and  I decided it was more practical to make sure we did cover the notable full professors at least. And in practice we reached agreement on that, and consequently AfDs on researchers are quite predictable--and quite rare. In other fields too: I would include many more academic journals than we do, but again, I thought better to accept a median position where we predictably kept the ones in major indexes.
 * It is better to have a clean compromise rule than to argue. This goes at least for everything that is not a fundamental moral principle. The only policy here I consider truly of that nature is NOT CENSORED.  DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In short,, notability for schools was in fact an idea originally seeded by our founder. Over the years, and even longer than the 7 years I've been a coordinator of the WP:WPSCH, this principle has been loosely applied as documented at OUTCOMES. There have been a geat many debates on the subject and even near-vandalism scale attempts to batch delete school articles through AfD. Neverteless, while not one single one of the debates reached a consensus one way or another, at AfD High Schools continue to be retained and non notable Primary Schools are redirected to their school district article or locality. In the meantime, as this is now supported by literally thousands of such closures, we can assume a tacit consensus for the current practice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go into detail. I indeed misread what the "compromise" is/was between. This is a more well reasoned way of framing the position than I've seen lately, when arguments have been dominated by demands that tradition take precedence over notability guidelines without going much further than that. I see granting ~"inherent notability" to a subject as a huge deal -- and if there is consensus for it to be so, then it's crucial it exist in the form of a policy or guideline rather than as informal understanding or tradition (I'm sure we could get into a number of discussions about the merits and problems with rules vs. traditions in the context of Wikipedia...).

While some who were part of the conversations leading to the compromise (and others) take it for granted, many others (myself included) take for granted that notability applies to every article unless modified, qualified, or exempted through some other policy or guideline -- because that's how it works for almost everything else (I can't think of an exemption as broad as secondary schools that is likewise uncodified somewhere). I agree that it's important for notability to remain a guideline. There's too much variability, too much subjectivity, too many other guidelines that modify it, and too great a need for judgment in exceptional cases. But providing a broad, [practically] beyond discussion exemption is just the sort of thing guidelines like the subject-specific criteria are there for.

Having read a great number of arguments on the subject now, I think I'm sufficiently persuaded to fall on the "support" side of adding it to a guideline should it be proposed, but until that happens I still see it as highly problematic to point to a descriptive essay to shut down discussion, asking for it to be treated as a prescriptive guideline. That's why I appreciate your rationale here, because it's not simply presented as WP:OUTCOMES -- a collection of noted trends that perpetuate themselves by their being wielded as an absolute rule.

In other words, your points are well taken. The problem is WP:OUTCOMES. I can't imagine those who support the notability of schools find it an ideal representation of consensus on the subject, either. I feel like I get the compromise, but if good will among the community was part of the reason for it, I think that the further we get from the date of that agreement, the more conflict and confusion the present arrangement will generate. Based on the above, I'd suggest you be one of those involved in drafting whatever RfC would address the problem? (Adding high schools to the gazetteer function of Wikipedia or WP:ORG seems the most straightforward rather than a whole new guideline).

Anyway, this is a longer followup message than I intended and I feel like I'm repeating myself a bit so I'll end there. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The declining of these G13s
Hi. I wanted to know why you removed the deletion nomination of Draft:De Paul School Brahmapur, Draft:GMERS Medical College and Draft:Government Engineering College Bharatpur. Please expand on what you believe what "notability" is. If there are no reliable sources available for the schools, obviously they aren't notable. Writing "it's the top school in ____" doesn't prove notability, either. I could go ahead and edit something like Steve Jobs and write "He was a good at fishing" but if it doesn't have a reference proving it's real, it doesn't matter whether he was the best at fishing or the absolute worst. I agree with one the essay on schools, where it says: Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia."

I'd like to know what you follow for the notability guidelines on schools. I don't mean to be rude, and you have been here longer than me, but don't remove a CSD G13 from an article which obviously doesn't have any future, unless you, yourself, edit it and fix it. Draft:De Paul School Brahmapur was last edited on 14 April 2013‎, just under 3 years ago. Draft:GMERS Medical College was last edited on 8 August 2015‎ or 29 May 2013‎, depending on what you define an edit being; either way it's been at least 11 months since the last edit. Draft:Government Engineering College Bharatpur was last edited on 2 January 2015‎, a year and a few months ago.

Thanks for reading all this, I hope I didn't come across harsh at all, I'd just like to know your reasoning. I'll be waiting for a response, I'm watching your talk page so no need to ping me (not stopping you, though). Anarchyte  (work  &#124; talk )   10:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * there are several questions here. For the reason why I think all high schools, and most certainly all colleges should be treated as notable ( see my response to U|Rhododendrites, a little above. Basically, it's to avoid arguing each of them. Similarly I would treat essentially all elementary schools as non-notable-- again, to avoid arguing each one of them.


 * Second, under G13, the draft is deleted only if nobody is working on it, but we normally define that as nobody being willing to work on it. I am willing to work on school articles,  so I removed the G13. And in fact I added some material to all three of them today, though not much, and removed the puffery, as I always do from any article I work on. I do have a rather long list of drafts to work on, but I eventually get to them, or someone else does.   But even at MfD, we normally do not drafts if they have any plausible possibility of making an article, unless they are harmful in some such way as being significantly promotional, or if multiple attempts to make an article have failed.


 * Since in the last five years  very few high school or college articles has every been deleted on grounds of notability, I would even be justified in moving them to article space, since the criterion is merely that the article is likely to pass AfD. But I did not do that, because I like most of us at AfC do not move such weak drafts to article space.    DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

An Invitation
As one of the most respected editors I know I hope you can take some time to join an important discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention about possibly finding a way to salvage Single-purpose editors and transforming them into positive WP collaborators in the general mainspace. I'm sure you run in to many of them as you wander around WP. I'm also sure that every now and then one of the SPA editors rises above the crowd and seems worthy of more of your time and effort. Your personal insight and experience would be appreciated. WP:WER has a declared mission to retain editors but we have become a relative ghost town (and I may be one of the few ghosts left in town) and User:Robert's idea may be just the boost the Project needs to revitalize. It's an opportunity for the Project to actually do something beyond handing out awards. I think Dennis Brown would like it. Please comment. Buster Seven   Talk  14:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * commented there;will keep an eye on the discussion  DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

European Graduate School
Hi DGG. I noticed you have been active in the AfD lately. I've proposed a new section to replace the former "accreditation" section on the Talk page, here. I think the proposal threads the needle of the various perspectives, including yours. Would you please have a look and comment there? thx. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A suite of dubious for-profit college articles
Hi David. If you have time, could you take a look at my comments at Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts? It's a for-profit unaccredited college and one of a whole suite of problematic promotional articles on institutions in the LSBF Group, of which it is a part. They all need eyes. And possibly redirects or AfDs? London College of Contemporary Arts was already deleted at this AfD in 2013 and recreated a few months later. I have no idea what the original one looked like. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * the most practical course is to merge to an article on the overall firm. I hope someone other than myself will do it.  DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

London School of Business and Finance and all its pomps and works
Hi David. Just a heads-up that I have begun clean up of this article following the London College of Contemporary Arts discussion. The details are at Talk:London School of Business and Finance. As I imagine my revisions will not escape the notice of the owner's brand managers, you might want to put it on watch. In the end, I also created a separate article on the owner, Global University Systems, which you might also want to put on watch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

10:04:41, 16 May 2016 review of submission by Gillkay
Thanks DGG for reveiwing my draft. I have done a bit of wikipedia editing in the past, but this is my first article, which hopefully excuses my wordy style. I have edited the draft according to your suggestions. If I resubmit will it go to you? My first version was edited by CookieMonster755 and I thought when I submitted my second draft it would go back to him unless I requested otherwise (which I didn't). I don't really mind either way, but it would make sense that if I make changes according to a reveiwer's advice, that reveiwer would be the one to see if I had solved the problems.Gillkay (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

, WP has very little organization, Whoever wants to & has the necessary experience can review a draft; it usually goes at random--most people simply take the oldest one in the queue, some, like myself, look for specific types of articles (I specialize in academic people and organizations, and certain types of businesses & certain types of problem articles) I also, as in this case, look at any submission another reviewer asks me to check. This does indeed mean that you may get conflicting directions in successive reviews, but it increases the odds that at least one of the reviews will be correct. The purpose of reviewing is only to screen out or get improved the articles that are unlikely to be accepted by the community after they are brought to article status; accepting an article when reviewing means nothing more than that the reviewer is of the opinion that the article is quite likely to be kept if brought to an WP:AFD discussion; unfortunately once more, the results of AfD discussions are not necessarily consistent or even always reasonable. Just like anyone can write articles, anyone can comment in a discussion. But the principle of WP is that it is not written (or controlled) by experts. The error rate in reviewing is very high--I would estimate that at least 10% of both the acceptances and rejections are simply wrong; in addition, at least 20% of the reviews seem to concentrate on the wrong issues. Some of the most experienced reviewers, including myself, try to check on ones other people have reviewed, especially when we think a particular reviewer is not doing it right, and then we try to explain to the reviewer. If someone persists in doing things seriously wrong, they can be barred from reviewing. At present, most of the really problematic reviewers have been dealt with. Most of the wrongly accepted articles do get removed at AfD; the wrongly rejected ones where the disappointed authors go away and are lost to us are the real problems. There is still some cleanup needed, but I will deal with it later today or tomorrow. You don't actually need to resubmit it  DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for the wonderful explanation! CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 17:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining . Learning gradually how this all works. Do I understand right that you can see my changes and will be telling me in a day or so about other changes I need to make?Gillkay (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * RECHECK

could you please help me with the African Library Project page?
Hi, a while ago you helped with making the African Library Project page more neutral. I made some changes. Then someone else suggested some specific changes, and I requested those edits, but no one has made them. I know you are a volunteer, and I appreciate that, but I am feeling a bit stuck, since it has been a long time. And just as a reminder, I am on the board so can't make the edits myself. Thanks very much. DeborahWC (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * {U:DeborahWC}}, I'll try to get there.  DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

North American Invasive Species Network
Hello DGG -

I noticed that the Bot known as HasteurBot has slated North American Invasive Species Network, in the Articles for Creation queue, for G-13 deletion. Personally, I think this article is worth saving and intend to move it out into the mainspace so it doesn't get deleted.

I am thinking this is somehow a notable organization after perusing their website. The work they are doing is profound.

FYI, I discovered this by accident because I saw a G-13 section on your talk page via my watchlist, and was curious as to what G13 is.

Anyway, from prior experience I know that you can be helpful and flexible when it comes to notability if the subject seems to warrant meriting inclusion. So, if you wish to help in any way it would be much appreciated. Also, if this doesn't work, and the page has to be deleted - well, at least I tried.--- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion request
Greetings DGG: I'm writing to request a third opinion about commentary at this AfD discussion. I'm not asking you to !vote in the discussion, but I'd be interested in receiving your viewpoints inre the commentary there about source searching. Thanks again for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, North America1000 10:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion has now closed, but the question referred to the use of deletion rationals that do not include a literature search, where you and were  arguing, essentially ( that it was necessary to follow WP:BEFORE, rather that use rationales like obviously not notable. Of course I basically agree--I've been suggesting for 8 years now that WP:BEFORE be made policy in discussing notability. But there are many caveats. Key ones include:


 * 1) This applies to the overall process of nominating an article, not each individual argument. In a typical discussion some people will concentrate on the number or quality of sources, others on additional factors.
 * 2) There are other reasons for deletion besides notability -- promotionalism, blp, NOT DIRECTORY, NOT TABLOID, not being a distinct topic from other articles, inherent POV of the topic, etc... In each of these there's the possibility that a literature search may enable us to correct the article, but sometimes the other factors are so strong as to make it unlikely. This is often true for some types of arguments: Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is     good reason for deletion.  Not meeting the special notability standards are good reasons for deletions. Even those can be overcome by really good discoverable sources, but for these types of articles there's no presumption that sources will exist if.
 * 3) Some subjects are inherently unlikely to have accessible sources. As a matter of form I could do a literature search for saints in Eastern religions, but I know from experience that it is extraordinarily unlikely that there will be any that I am capable of finding. There are similarly unlikely to be sources for a scientist who is still a graduate student, or who has published very little. Exceptions exist, but only rarely.  DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply, which is appreciated. Yes, a variety of various factors can come into play at AfD. I was just concerned because it appears that you are perhaps mentoring a user in some manner who participated in that discussion, in which they ping you to various AfD discussions. I've politely pointed out WP:NEXIST to the user before, but they seem to just ignore it. As such, I figured it would be prudent to bring the matter to your attention. Thanks again for your input here, North America1000 08:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD concerns
Hi! I'm reaching out to you because I know you work well with many people involved with AfD. I am concerned about the lack of WP:BEFORE going on at these AfD discussions and others. The thread that seems to tie these together is that they are genre writers or foreign actors/writers. Is there anyway you can intervene and help the nom understand WP:BEFORE? I don't mind improving articles brought to AfD, but there's a lot of pressure involved when it's at AfD instead of just being tagged. Anyway, thank you in advance! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As I just said to the editor "Please in nominating authors and professors for deletion, remember to consider first if they may meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. It's very easy to use WorldCat to check for the importance of published books. " It is not  really enough in these cases to do a cursory search of   relevant databases. BEFORE is not a magic formula, but has to be used with clear understanding of where information is likely to be found. And then, if one finds some indication of importance, that should be followed up before nominating.
 * That said, I too sometimes make guesses, tho I would have to admit that it's an unfortunate shortcut,  and I try to avoid the temptation to make  them in unfamiliar fields. In the instances here,  there does seem to have been a string of wrong guesses.   DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and, i sometimes get annoyed at the number of afds that end up as 'keep' as the subject is notable, especially as WP:AFD encourages nominators to carry out a number of checks before nominating. but as i was informed here Articles for deletion/Peter Willcox, WP:BURDEN states "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", or in these cases, the article creator should have included approriate references, although we also have WP:CONTN ie. "Article content does not determine notability", it can all be very confusing. kitten stalker - meowr! Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it can be confusing, . DGG is right that not all searches are equal. Sometimes I don't find evidence of notability until I hit the right database. And it can be a guessing game where you have to balance a lot of factors. Perhaps itvwouk d help to continue to hold dialogue. I think it's very important for Wikipedia editors to be able to talk to one another. Sometimes AfD becomes a battleground.  But we don't have to agree to start tslking and understanding each other. I appreciate your time here and I'll check my email shortly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)\

comment

 * Thank you for replying, thank you for being an ArbCom member. I doubt I'll ever summon the courage, yes courage, to serve as an admin, much less an Arb, so there's that. A hero of mine just died, and life is short. Bless you, and yours, always. Jus  da  fax   05:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

About Sustained Dialogue Institute
DGG, I will be declining your WP:A7 on that article as soon as soon as I click on. Surely it would least amount to a WP:REDIRECT? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out what to do with the pair of articles, Sustained Dialogue Institute and Sustained Dialogue Campus Network. Together they represent a promotional campaign. If we had one, and could write it non promotionaly .it might make sense to have it on the Institute, but the one on the Network is the much more substantial article.  DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * RECHECK

Not notable: Malls
I came across Brunswick Square (East Brunswick, New Jersey) during pages patrol. Looking for sources, there are trivial local news stories about a fire, needing an artist, and so on. There is nothing notable there.

The article references do not appear to be related to the article. The first ref is broken anyway, but is supposed to be connected to "The International Council of Shopping Centers: New Brunswick". And one ref is supposed to be the list of stores at the mall, but it goes here: (its a mix of page 404 and a link to a store). That ref would be really trivial anyway if it worked.

However, my biggest concern is the large template at the bottom of the page entitled: "Shopping malls in the New York metropolitan area". I believe the template is entitled: "New York City Malls", and yes here it is. I count 89 malls - I might be off by a couple, but there it is. What can be done about this? The thing is, this shows that a number of people have no idea what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The NY Metropolitan Area has 24 million people. I think the number of malls reasonable. Certainly for the ones in NYC proper, all those listed are clearly notable, except perhaps   one, that I just nominated for deletion.  Articles for deletion/Bricktown Center at Charleston  If anything, the listing is conservative; O can think of at least one or two more.  In the suburbs, I only know a few of the possible regions, so there are probably a few borderline one.  As for this particular one, if you think it not notable, list it for afd.


 * Afds on malls have been toatally inconsistent. Some ears ago I tried to establish a basic standard of 1 million sq ft, (100,0000 sq. meters) for the ordinary type of suburban mall (downtown city ones are harder to specify---they are normally more compact. The proposal was rejected. I think the best way forward is to look for chains of malls, and see if we can combine them.  Malls sometimes do define an areas--after all, perhaps the original purpose of a city was to have a protected market square.   DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK thanks - this was very helpful. Before this, I did not know the notability standards for malls. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Barbera Coffee Company
Could you please help me with this? I spent considerable time working on the page for Barbera Coffee Company. While I recognize that some of the content might have been the same as previously posted content, I never saw the page, nor did I have any knowledge about it having been discussed and removed previously.

I researched the material and made every effort to meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. If you research, as I have already requested elsewhere, you would find that I'm not a highly active editor on this platform. I find it very confusing to work in. However, I am a serious writer, who would never waste your time if I could help it.

It begins to feel like Wikipedia editors are not willing to allow this company a page on Wikipedia because someone who came before me didn't know what they were doing--possibly the company themselves, especially as English isn't their first language. Could I please be given access to the previous discussion, so I can know how to resolve the issues and advise Barbera Coffee Company on how to meet your demands and that of other Wikipedia editors (if there are any).Writingasaghost (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I realize now, after some help from the help desk, that I broke a major rule when I failed to create a use page with the proper attribution for paid work. I wish someone would have told me this in the beginning when issues arose with the page. I've been floundering like an idiot.
 * I have rectified the failure to reveal the COI, now that I'm aware of the COI issue. If I read this over six years ago, I had forgotten it. Could I at least get the page back to draft status?Writingasaghost (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I will take a look, but it may take another week or two.  DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * RECHECK

Belmond Eagle Island Lodge
Hi DGG

I notice that you have redirected my page about Belmond Eagle Island Lodge. I would like the chance to improve it, Please could you let me know why you believe it will 'inevitably be deleted' so I can make the appropriate updates to enable to page to be reinstated.

Thanks PurpleSpiderSpider (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will get back to you on this by tomorrow DGG ( talk ) 12:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am editing this page today, I reinstated it in order to edit it. Please do not remove just yet - allow me time to complete the revisions. Many thanks PurpleSpiderSpider (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * STILL NEEDS CHECKING

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Judith Donovan
Dear Graeme,

I have seen that Judith Donovan’s profile has been described as too promotional. She is an outstanding businesswoman, awarded a CBE (one of the highest Queen’s Honours) and has brought about real change and benefits to small businesses, especially in rural areas. We feel the public would expect her to be on Wikipedia?

Is there any way you could accept the profile if we were to edit with your guidance?

We would welcome your advice With thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyross00 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'lll get back to you tomorrow on this.  DGG ( talk ) 12:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I see her career on Google, and CBE is in fact considered notability, (but not OBE or MBE.) but I cannot find the draft article or the deleted article on Wikipedia. Were you the author? If I cannot find it to restore, I'll write a sketch myself. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will get there. I haven't forgotten.  DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I still intend to do this  DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * STILL NEEDS CHECKING

UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool.  DGG ( talk )
 * Hey DGG, I haven't seen an account request on the UTRS tool from you.--v/r - TP 07:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ({U|TParis}}, just tried again  DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, I've activated your account. Thanks for volunteering.--v/r - TP 20:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A pointer
WP:AN/CXT. All the best— S Marshall T/C 20:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Daniel Romanovsky discussion

 * Greetings David. I was actually going to make a comment about this subject and ask your opinion on your talk page, prior to your posting. I was mulling it over for the last 24 hours at least. I was (and am) very interested in your thoughts about how the current guidance in academic notability with regard personalities in the humanities could be made more flexible. You will probably disagree, but I believe them to be overly-rigid at this time. I am interested in a new discussion on the appropriate venue that may begin a new dialogue, and new thinking to this aspect of notability as the project currently sees it. I hope I have not made a fool of myself by defending the keep, in my response to your posting. I am trying to interpret the guidance as I see it, with a dash of common sense. I am fairly new to the fascinating topic of AfD and would like to become more engaged in it. I hugely respect your vast experience and insight both in this subject area and in the totality of the project. I must admit though, that I do believe the subject does have good grounds for relisting at least. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * we go by the publications. The key criterion #1, impact, Academic impact in the 20th/21st century is almost always by publications in any field except some of the applied sciences.  The current WP standard in practice is essentially the extent of publications that would qualify for a full professorship at a major university. (Myself, I'd just go by the professorship on the grounds that the university is a better judge than  we are, but that's not the consensus). (Myself again, a little more radically, I'd support the lower standard of associate professorship, but again, this is definitely not the consensus). The requirements for even associate professorship in a first class research university is two academic books by major publishers known to do peer review--either university presses or the few relevant commercial publishers. Nothing else matters, except that at least the 2nd books should not be based on the thesis.  but show an independent line of research capable of attracting graduate students and other faculty. At 2nd rate research universities this has been watered down in recent years to one academic book, and three substantial research articles in major journals. That's not our standard, that's the standard of the field.
 * there are a number of special considerations:
 * 1/the creative arts, but our standard makes special provision for them.
 * 2/people in some humanistic specialties where publications other than books count: the most common one that causes problems here is archeology.
 * 3/people working in research institutes of some sort, who publish in other than academic book or journal format. These can be hard to judge; often we end up using the GNG instead of PROF here.  :::4/people in geographic areas that do not fully participate in the US-WEuropean academic system--these can be almost impossible to judge here, as almost nobody has the expertise.
 * 5/people in disadvantaged groups whose actual output is less than would be merited by their actual quality of work--there is no consensus about how much to take this into account. My own view is to take this only slightly into account for 2000+, increasingly more in earlier generations. What happens in any given case depends upon who appears and how hard they fight.
 * 6/people in what are considered here to be weird. These are usually judged nonnotable unless there's a lobby overwhelming the discussion.
 * 7/people in fields not considered rigorous here: education, home economics, library science, etc --fields that often are heavily populated by women at least in past generations. We've been very dismissive in the past, less so now.
 * 8/there's an alternative that sometimes applies : some people who publish relatively non-scholarly books can be foudn notable by WP:AUTHOR.
 * Actually, the real problem has been the opposite of what you seem to think. People in the humanities can be dealt with quite easily, because they publish books, and the criteria for books & authors is very flexible and exceedingly broad. The difficulty has been with scientists. It took years here to get WP:PROF and citation analysis accepted as a basis for notability. At one point I started saying I might argue on the basis that if someone was cited at all, each citation would be a RS for N. (and the argument would then be on whether each of them had substantial criticism or discussion, which can be a very long argument--if there are 10 papers with 10 refs, each of 100 referring papers would need to be examined in detail.) The net result would be to extend notability down into the assistant professor category. I like to think that this ended the matter, for the  people who thought only famous scientists were notable then accepted WP:PROF as a compromise.
 * It is a very poor idea to take one particular case where the rules don't show notability for someone that you want an article on, and use that as a basis for changing the rule. Argue rather that the particular case should be an exception. WP:IAR is  fundamental policy and therefore can over-ride anything that might be provided by any  notability guideline.   DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your detailed and informative response DGG, and the brief history of the matter, and the advice at the end of the post. I will take it all very much on board. Thanks for taking the time. Simon Irondome (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I wonder if point #5 ("people in disadvantaged groups whose actual output is less than would be merited by their actual quality of work") may apply to Romanovski? The 1980s weren't the 1950s, but studying Holocaust in the Soviet Union at that time was definitely a career limiting move. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This actually occurred to me, but it's not the usual meaning. But there's a limit to how far we can stretch. It would have to be someone who's almost notable, and I don't think he's anywhere near it.  DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

NewPages tesr

 * DGG, All three pages show up at Special:NewPages as well as Special:NewPagesFeed.   - NQ  (talk)  19:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Set namespace to "all" in the box to show pages originally created as "Draft:" or "User:". - NQ (talk)  21:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * aha! I didn't realize it was the original namespace that mattered! thanks. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , But the normal way of searching in NPP is just article space. I know that's the way I always use, and I suspect its's the way most people do also--Looking at the conventional NP feed with the filter set to "all", I see not just user pages but a great deal of clutter from categories, user talk pages, article talk pages, files, etc.  As there is no way of saying "user + article", the unnecessary material cannot be removed. (compare with the flexible namespace choices in the Search function.)  Using the Article Curation new pages feed, I see there is no "all" setting -- one can select either mainspace, or user, but, again, not the combination. We should be able to do much better than this.
 * And, looking at these, I see that article space drafts is a truly horrible morass, and I am beginning to think we should insist that all drafts go in Draft space.  DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Charles Robinson
lso produced Arthur Charles Evans, which has the same whiff of undisclosed paid editing. Similarly deceptively sourced. Once you look at the sources, like the Robinson article, most evaporate (dead links, trivial mentions, blogs, etc). --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)...
 * Follow up. The book was, as I feared, kept at Articles for deletion/Anthony Charles Robinson. I just cleaned it up a little, but the essential lack of notability remains. I think it's worth a renom.  DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For your assistance with the recent research mess that I bought to ANI.

Stuartyeates (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC) 

AFC redux
Rather than clog up ANI, I'd like to offer some responses to your, specifically the Some things can never be done section: (continued in AfC NPP archive)

Draft:Centro Universitário da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro
Hi DGG. You commented that this is a notable subject. I tried to find some substantiation, but I haven't had success. There's an article in the Portuguese Wikipedia (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centro_Universit%C3%A1rio_da_Cidade_do_Rio_de_Janeiro) but none of the references there seem appropriate from what I can figure out. I am not going to work on it any more. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All universities are notable, and that's what this is. We can get the necessary details from their web site for the specifics, but w do need an outside source that it isn't imaginary--and, in thiscase, provides some needed NPOV The observatoriodaimprensa is about the head of the university; http://sindipetroalse.org.br has a section about  him . "O Grupo Delfin" about 2/3 of the way down; ltimosegundo.ig.com.br is about this university, in para 5; Agência Brasil.  is about the withdrawal of its autonomy; http://portal.mec.gov.br  is about the withdrawal of its government  accreditation
 * the enWP article mentions none of the last two items, so some work is needed,   DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

COI & POV Flags On An Article
Hi there, I came across an article Richard B. Hollis that you have contributed to in the past. The article now has COI & POV flags on it. It appears that since the flags have been added, the article has been edited and refined. As a new user I wanted to help clean up the article, but do not know where to start. Since you have vast knowledge of the wiki world and have worked on the article in the past, I was hoping you can take a look at this article and see what needs to be cleaned up before removing the flags. I am just trying to learn the ins and outs of Wiki! Thank you!

Ventanas144 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Ventanas144


 * first thing I have to ask, is whether you by any chance have   a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. If so, please see WP:COI for out guidelines on how o contribute. And if financial in any way, you will need to declare it: see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure


 * second, I need to tell you, that if you are the same person  as any other editor who has worked n the article earlier. such as  the editor who worked on it earlier his week, you must choose one single account and use it only.
 * With a COI, the way to add material is is as follows: Add the material to the article's talk page, not the article page itself, and place a  tag on the talk page, after your suggestion.   (include the double curly braces on each side)
 * As for the article, we need dates and exact permissions for the various firms. We also should not be describing their products unless he persona;ly had a role in developing them, and there are goodthird party references for this. Is the patent in his name? Did he sponsor the project within the firm, or did he just invent the improvements himself.
 * I know I originally accepted the article, but I need to examine it again to see if he actually meets the notability standard--most of the references seem to be aboutthe firms.  DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the sourcing and content so that it is about him and is neutral, in my view. I think it OK and meets notability now.  I also removed the POV tag.  Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I can do a little more.  DGG ( talk ) 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * STILL TO DO

Sumeeti Mital
Hi there, I saw you had reviewed my article on Sumeeti Mittal and shared comments on the same. Could we discuss the issues raised by you. 07:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noopur Anand (talk • contribs)

Marc Straus
Please feel free to continue deleting the trivia and other cruft. I'm a trained scientist, and this man annoys me so much I'm not sure I could be objective. Narky Blert (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * JIC you haven't put this article on your watchlist - Requests for page protection. Narky Blert (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * STILL NEEDS CHECKING

Article deletion - MX1 (media)
Hi DGG. You deleted the article, MX1 (Media), on August 1 citing “Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)”. I did not create this article but did make some contribution to it a few days before deletion. Yesterday I went to add some more to it and found it not there (!) I do believe that MX1 is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (not least because the company is the result of the merger of two companies which are themselves each the subject of an article) and it was partly to demonstrate this that I was going to add more material to the article.

So, what do I do now? Can you restore the article so I can flesh it out, and so make it more worthy of inclusion? Or should I start from scratch with a new page and new content? Or should I move the article for one of the merged companies from which MX1 is formed to a new title MX1 (media) and add MX1 content to that? Whichever is the solution, could you give me an idea of your criteria for significance of a company so I can make sure a ‘new’ article meets these? Thanks Satbuff (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I think the best approach is to consider it a rebranding of SES, taken place as a result of its acquisition of the much smaller company RR media. This is normally the way we handle such situations. The problem with the new article is that at this opint the sources are mere notices describing the acquisition--because, I'd venture, there is nothing much else to say yet.
 * You might want to take a look at the SES page overall--it would give a less promotional appearance by removal of adjectives and similar rewording. The RR page is much worse, and if you want to attempt to to fix that, please do.  (I should mention I'm aware of the the COI discussion on your usertalk, and I recognize that you are  a good faith editor.) '  DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DGG, for your (unexpectedly) speedy response and apologies for my (sadly) slow reply (- not had a lot of time for Wikipedia recently)! I think you may be confusing SES S.A. with SES Platform Services? The latter is the one rebranded and is owned by the former - SES Platform Services has acquired, and merged with, RR Media and the merged company rebranded as MX1; SES S.A. is unchanged. So, are you suggesting that I move (rename) SES Platform Services to MX1? That makes sense to me, and it would get around the problem you mention of ‘not a lot to say yet’ on the new company.
 * Incidentally, on the SES S.A. page, I have actually done considerable work to address the ‘reads like an advert’ (and other) template notices placed there in December 2015 and was considering removing them - but your remarks clearly demonstrate I have not got there yet! Satbuff (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * STILL NEEDS CHECKING

WorldCat library holdings
In an AfD where you nominated Andrew Peterson, you stated as part of your rationale that - WorldCat shows holdings of between 80 and 150 libraries - and later commented - Worldcat shows a total of less then 80 holdings for all of them together, however my search at WorldCat yielded a different result: 587 library holdings. Seems like a big difference. Nonetheless, I guess my point is moot now that the article has been deleted.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * there is usually some discrepancy in the counts when you go book by book, and when you go to the authorioverview record, but this is the sharpest one I have seen--and it goes in the opposite direction--usually the author summary record one is smaller. I will reanalyze and get back to you, If I have made an error & it affects what I would say, I'll consider how to deal with the problem.  DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank You!
David - Just a quick Saturday morning thanks for your thoughtful and helpful feedback! Appreciate it.

Djelky (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Milstein pages inquiry
Hi DGG, it's been awhile. Hope you're doing well. I am writing today on behalf of Adam Milstein, a client of my company Beutler Ink (in partnership with another PR firm, coincidentally named Miller Ink). My focus is two pages: Adam Milstein and Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation. I have not yet posted on either talk page, but I have disclosed my interest by adding the template to both.

In July you were briefly active on both articles. It looks to me like you undid some promotional edits by an SPA, and appropriately so in my opinion. After restoring each entry, you then also added the tags. What I'd like to find out, on Mr. Milstein's behalf, is what you think should be done in each case so these warning tags are no longer necessary. With your input, it would be my intention to prepare updates to these pages to be guideline-compliant. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I shall take a look. I was planning to look at related pages also. One of the things that concerns me  is duplication among articles.   DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the quick reply. I haven't looked closely at the duplication issue, though that does sound like it would require rectifying. Please let me know what else you see, and I can start working on improvements. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "Risher believes that ..." is a phrase that always bothers me. And I'd integrate the awards section.  DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG, I'm afraid I'm confused by your response. On neither the Adam Milstein nor the Milstein Foundation page is there any occurrence of the word "Risher", nor is there any awards section. Would you please look again and let me know what you find? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

RECHECK

Help with a draft
Hi DGG!

Could you help me with a draft that I wrote? Its the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Majestic_Hotel_Group and it was declined because "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources". However, on my references, I put well known newspapers such as La Vanguardia and El Mundo and also Review Pro, a company present worldwide. So why these sources are not reliable? Which type of source should I use ? Or the draft was declined because the references were not written in the right way? I sent a message to the person that declined the draft a few days ago but since I havent got a reply and I saw you replying a comment, so thatºs why Im writing to you now. Thanks in advance!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmchris (talk • contribs) 09:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The reviewer in question has been barred from AfC and has not edited simce 29 August. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * . The part of the firm which is important is the original property, the Majestic Hotel in Barcelona. You need to rewrite the article to emphasize that. Since the hotel dates from 1918, there should be good references available. The rest of the properties belong in a separate section called something like Other properties.  DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help! :D I've just resubmit the draft. Can you have a loook on it ? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmchris (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG!! I've just seen your comment /advice regarding the page (either have a page concerning the group or just the Majestic Hotel Group). But why only one page, if one is regadirng the hotel and the other, the group? It wouldnt be the first case since Wikipedia has the following pages abou hotels that belong to a chain : Trump International Hotel and Tower (Honolulu), Mercure Hotel Canberra , Shangri-La Hotel (Dubai) , Grand Hyatt Cannes Hôtel Martinez and the Dubai Marriot Harbour Hotel &Suites.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Revmchris (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Please assist
Hi DGG, I'm writing as you've assisted in the revision history of the article located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metapress. In my opinion, this was incorrectly nominated for deletion a few days ago. Please review the current conversation, and add to the discussion if possible. Potentially I need to add more references? There are many more that I could add. I truly believe this is a useful, descriptive, and appropriate page for continued inclusion. Please let me know what you think. Thank you! Mark54ems
 * Hi DGG. Please see the revised version of the Metapress article, as well as my last comment on it's articles for deletion page. Looking forward to your opinions, now that I've clarified more about the topic. Thanks! Mark54ems


 * STILL NEEDS CHECKING

Notability of business people?
Hi DGG. If you have time, I'd appreciate your input at Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Storey where some interesting issues have been raised about the notability of business people. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that David, your input was very helpful, and pretty much what my instincts are. You're so right about the distortions of blindly following GNG, primarily because PR agencies can generate mountains of "press coverage" for utterly inconsequential people, businesses, and (yet to be completed) projects. this discussion was a prime example. The article was eventually deleted, but not without some stubborn resistance. Voceditenore (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Inquiry again re: Adam Milstein + Foundation
Hi DGG, I'm creating a new section since I think another reply on the above thread is too likely to be lost. As I asked then, I'd like your input on what you believe would need to be fixed on the pages Adam Milstein and Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation before the tags can be removed. Your initial reply concerned a different page than the either of the two I'm asking about. Please let me know what your concerns are about these two linked pages, and I can begin working on improvements. However, if you are too busy, I may seek another opinion from a volunteer editor next week. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * the main problem remainsduplication: the Campus Maccabees section is the same in both articles! And there's still promotional wording and promotional sourcing. In the foundation article, article:: 1/section 4 is sourced only to two PR sources.   2/Wording like "to submit personal videos letting the world see the positive things coming out of Israel" is advocacy; this or very similar phrases are used several times.   The only reason I haven't fixed  this is that since they are your clients, I want to leave it up to you to decide which article to put the duplicated material in--they could actually go either place, since though listed as independent, it's essentially his private foundation, as is shown by the fact that both he and it claim credit for the same things.  If there is not major improvement I'm going to propose a merge on that basis to the article on him.
 * By the way, are any of the following accounts your firm or their contractors: User:Therowervz; User:MBurg1952, User:Leah757, User:70.161.231.157; User:Jewishsarah? None of them seem to have a declaration on their user page, which as you know is required.  DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate the more detailed response. But first, absolutely no way is my firm in any way associated with those accounts. I have seen them in the edit history, and I certainly see why you are curious about them, but I don't know anything about them. We've started working with Mr. Milstein in just the past couple of weeks, and my inquiries with you are the extent of our on-wiki efforts so far. I'll begin working on better sourcing and separation of topics. As for a merge, I haven't looked into it and do not have an opinion about that, either. As I start working on it, I expect I'll have some thoughts about that. Also: another editor has made a number of changes to the Milstein biography as of this weekend, and has removed the tag from that page, so you may want to have a look at that. Anyway, more from me soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I hope you don't mind me putting this comment here rather than starting a new thread. It's OK if you don't see it immediately, since I don't really have an update except to say that my firm's involvement has been put on hold. We may resume in the future, but I can't say with certainty. In the meantime, I don't have an opinion about what is best for these pages. I will let you know if that changes for us. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * still needs checking

David R. Paolo
Hey DGG, how are you doing? I have seen you around AfD opposing promotion on Wikipedia. I need your opinion on something. I came across this article that seemed promotional to me. I looked the guy up and found that he is not a saint as his article contend. Naturally, I add a few statements about him in the article, but someone keeps removing anything negative that I add. Someone is actively trying to keep the article very positive. On top of that, the guy is hardly notable. He hasn't had received so much press coverage, no major awards - was once finalist for EY, but I don't know if that makes him notable. I am inclined to taking on AfD, but I need your opinion on this first. Check the history.Susana Hodge (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * working on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * still lthinking...  DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * STILL NEEDS CHECKING

New York Times disproving notability
I'm trying to comprehend your statement "The NYT article is a fairly good explanation of that; far from proving the notability of the company, it disproves it."  But no matter how many ways I twist my brain, I am unable understand what you are trying to say, nor am I able to put your statement into any valid context relatable to wikipedia policies or guidelines. Could you explain your reasoning when you typed that statement? Thanks! -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The material in that article shows the company is not yet notable. Sometimes a newspaper -- even a very good newspaper -- covers something because of some human interest  hook, or because it's a typical example--as, to take an example, the instances selected for coverage in the articles in the NYT Neediest Cases Fund drive.  Such coverage is not notability. Here, it overs the firm, and the coverage is directed to saying how completely un-notable the company is, except for the human interest in its founder, along with similar insignificant companies serving similarly  as  hobbies by wealthy young people. The only meaning of notability in a WP context is what is suitable to  be in the encyclopedia. If there's coverage in good sources showing it is not suitable, then it is not notable., just as much as if there were no coverage at all .   The GNG is a useful general rule, but has to be used with judgment about what is actually in the source.  DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (For any talk page stalkers, we're discussing this NYT ref and its coverage of the company Appboy) - Thanks DGG, that helps me understand your reasoning a bit more.  My first reaction is that your argument is based on WP:Original Research, ie: your personal view of what is the meaning of the text published in the New York Times.  I welcome further discussion on this issue in general, might even be essay-worthy.  Cheers!  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't use OR in writing an article. We certainly can and do in evaluating a source.We  evaluate using a source by examining it, not taking it for granted that the headline describes the content.  A great deal of our evaluation of sources as RS for content and the more stringent  RS for notability or RS for negative content on BLPs is done by OR, and claimed expertise. and sometimes by pure opinion. Or, as in this case, a claim to take a common sense view after reading the source carefully.  DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you see this as a failure/weak point of the GNG policy? --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a strength. To see the importance of being able to discuss sources in detail see the voluminous archives of the talk p for WP:RS and the RS noticeboard. The GNG if applied without qualifiers would produce truly absurd results. We deal with it by arguing about whether the references are "substantial" "third-party"  "independent"and "reliable"   and, to be frank, for many disputed cases I could probably make an equally good argument about these criteria in either direction, depending upon what result I wanted to achieve. Other people of course do this also, and the net result is we accept or reject whatever the consensus wants to do for whatever reason which need not be actually stated.
 * Personally, I consider the entire GNG criterion a failure of notability policy. Notability should be decided on objective criteria. The most important  reason we haven't done this is the disputes we would have on just what the criteria are to be.   DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Rohit Khattar
Hi DGG, Please tell which references are to be removed from page of Rohit Khattar. The page doesn't need to be deleted.
 * You could retain one ref to prove he owns a film company, and one to prove he owns a restaurant, but what you need is to find some actual  reliable non-trivial sources. See Articles for deletion/Rohit Khattar.  DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Worldcat holdings
Hi, I wonder if you could help determine if this would considered a notable author? Ronald Smelser. Are there any tips or guidelines on how to evaluate such holdings in general? I've seen holdings mentioned at several AfDs but I'm not sure how to apply them. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (talk page watcher) Hello, happening to look, he is certainly notable in that the numbers exceed 8,000 and the largest book of which is at 861 libraries (imaginably, reviews will exist and those would ultimately help of course); usually the best convincing ones are going to be at least 1,000 as that's sufficient to suggest major; it also then varies by what the highest held book is, and whether he was the primary or at least secondary, and also whether that said book is a majorly published and major book, in that case, the person would be notable, yes. Also, closely related, there are some that may still be notable by a special case, for example, one author may have 860 library holdings, and they only published one book, but that one of them is held at, say, 850 libraries, that would be sufficient for notability, especially if reviews exist. Cheers, SwisterTwister   talk  04:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ,, it is not quite that simple. An arbitrary figure  makes no sense whatsoever, )(any more than there is a single arbitrary figure for h-index.) Library holdings of books are very field dependent, and very language , date, * country dependent.
 * First, field dependency: In esoteric fields with a small number of people working, such as notably archeology or linguistics, some aspects of academic religion, even 50 or 60 holdings of a book is quite significant.  In other academic fields, such as the study of mainstream literary figures, 300 of so would be needed. I can think of not academic field whatsoever where 800 copies would be needed to indicate notability of the book or the author. In popular non-fiction or fiction, the genre has to be considered--some fields can have very high holdings, such as science fiction or mysteries, or childrens fiction series, or bios about people in popular culture or current politics or about how to succeed in business or current vogues in spirituality-in many of these it would take several hundred to be even mildly significant.   But remember that WorldCat figures measure only books in libraries some of these fields, including radical literature or alternate sexuality are rarely held in libraries, even now and almost never before the 21st century.
 * Second, date: popular and childrens fiction of earlier generations is very rarely kept by public libraries. They concentrate almost entirely upon what people are likely to ask for, which is what has been published in the last few years, and discard them when they no longer circulate--Even important popular or childrens fictions from the first half of the 20th century will have very low library holding.
 * But the most important variable is country. WorldCat includes essentially all academic and most public libraries in the United States, with somewhat less intense coverage  of those in Canada, and only the major ones in the UK. Elsewhere there is a sprinkling of public libraries is Australia/New Zealand, and a few major university of national libraries elsewhere, but essentially no public libraries. A few European countries have good national listings, but I am not familiar with using them. Elsewhere in the world there is for all practical purposes nothing accessible. Therefor even    UK fiction is represented less than US, and the most popular childrens book in Italy may have a few dozen WorldCat holdings at most,  and one published in India in Hindi, essentially none.
 * This is relatively little problem in evaluating academic work, as the general rule is that we consider notability under WP:PROF as international (tho this is unfair to fields that are inherently national, such as political science or agriculture of a particular country) . For publicculture in the usual sense, it's critical.
 * There are also peculiarities in publishing practices,and in WorldCat: Books published in e-book packages are often bought by libraries as a package, just as e-journals are, and even high holdings may indicate little. Worldcat is erratic in combining forms of authors names, even for Western authors.  Some books are published in multiple editions or versions, and Worldcat does not do well in combining them.(and earlier eds. of many sorts or works are routinely discarded by libraries) Worldcat counts from the individual book pages and those from the author summaries are often widely divergent even up to ±50, for reasons I do not understand . Libraries in the past have rarely bought textbooks; nowadays if they do, they almost never keep the older eds. So for this genre,they may be a drastic undercount or overcount. I would be very reluctant to sum up holdings of different books in worldcat as a number because of these anomalies. Doing it right for a major author is a research project.
 * There is a very sensitive bibliographic technique which can be used in some cases:comparing the book with others in the field. (These needs to be done with great care, not just relying on LC subject headings, which, by and large, are much more erratic than even WP categories) .But I have used this to show, for example that a particular dictionary of a very minor language is the most widely held one in that subject. I'll do this sort of analysis on request if i thin it important enough.
 * And, as Swister Twister mentioned, there is the question of publisher. For academics, only the university presses and the academic societies and the few specialist commercial publishers count at all (this is not just a recent phenomenon--its been true from the 18th century on at least). For popular works, only established publishers count, but there can be confusion with the multiple imprints of major houses, which usually do count, and with the very few fields whee self publishing may occasionally  be significant, such as sci-fi.
 * There is another trick: if you look up the author search page in WorldCat eg.  (not the author summary page, eg.  at the very end, aftre the books and the journal articles he wrote in JStor and Muse journals --which are the only ones WorldCat sually analyses for articles--, are the book reviews of his books, at least those in the Jsstor and Muse journals


 * Now, the case you brought up, Ronald Smelser, has multiple books with extremely high counts even considering that the Nazi era is a widely populr topic in modern history., mostly from academic publishers of importance. There is no question whatsoever that he is notable. Had he even one such book with such high counts, he probably would be, but WP:PROF usually requires two, which is the standard of the highest quality research universities for tenure. This is not the same as showing that his views are widely accepted--that requires other sources. That we have no article on him is incredible. His book The Myth of the Eastern Frontpublished by Cambridge University Press.  is a major work, and worth an article. Based on the article, the question is whether his view is the academic consensus. It can not be determined solely fro the reviews, but by other major publication on the subject.  (It is not uncommon for reviews in the humanities to be written by other specialists in the field , who are necessarily owe's rivals) But it is certainly enough to qualify him as an expert, if not necessarily the expert.  DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Now there is: Ronald Smelser; thanks to for moving it from draft. Surprisingly, an admin was questioning the subject's notability on the Talk page: Talk:Ronald_Smelser :-). They apparently do not spend enough time at AfD to be able to evaluate notability of authors and academics, as both WP:AUTHOR & WP:ACADEMIC are met by the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

C)

NPP & AfC reforms
David, I realise you are totally overloaded with Wikipedia work, and understand that you won't have time to join the work group, but as your comments are some of the most valuable concerning these critical issues, your input on the polls at Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/To do would be most appreciated. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But I will join the work group-- . I;m getting discouraged by my current efforts at deleting promotional articles b he resistance from several editors who think that unimportant, and will even go to the lengths of gratifying the COI promotional  editors by rewriting their work even when the subject is not particularly important. The significance of NOT DIRECTORY   has escaped them, and they'd rather increase our size than our quality. This goes in cycles, and at the moment they seem to be winning.  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * and of course it is not our job here to ignore notable topics, or to even go so far as to call a notable topic "not particularly important". We go by what independent reliable sources have to say, we don't let our own personal views interfere.   --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are degrees of notability. Even WP:GNG is clear that a article having moderate notability does not necessarily justify an article if, for example, it can be combined as part of a more comprehensive article. Determining the degree of notability is very much our job. There are many important topics in missing from WP; in what order shall we work on them? Obviously we're limited by what people are willing to do, but for those of us able to work on a range of topics rather than having some particular interest, which article should we choose? Personally, I think those submitted by promotional and paid editors go to the bottom of the pile, because we want to discourage, not encourage e such editing. But many different choice are compatible with building an encyclopedia like ours.  DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , There is one area where we can let our own personal views interfere - at least mine, and that is that I won't lift a finger to help a paid spammer increase his fees and ultimately the turnover of his company or client on the back of my tens of thousands of hours of voluntary work on Wikipedia. No run-of-the-mill company of any kind is so important for an encyclopedia that it has to be included, with or without sources. It's not our job, we're, well, unpaid volunteers, and we choose what we are prepared to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, we all get to pick and choose what areas of wikipedia we want to contribute to. Personal views like you describe above are an absolutely valid reason to not contribute in a certain area.  Just like personal views that notability is the prime factor, and neutrality concerning 'how the sausage was made', is an absolutely valid reason to contribute in a certain area.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft essay: AFD and promotionalism
Another friendly challenge: Help edit an essay on AFD and promotionalism. First step, do we agree on the wording for what to debate in this essay? Currently is: "Proposed: During Articles for deletion debates, a Delete !vote based on a complaint of promotionalism is valid." -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not make sense to get into multiple debates with  on the same general topic. We have to pick one place. As far as I am concerned, this page is good because it is very widely watched. As a preliminary, a question such as 'Proposed: During Articles for deletion debates, a Delete !vote based on a complaint of promotionalism is valid."  is not precise enough for a debate. It depends   on the meaning of valid--I suppose you mean acceptable as one of the reasons for makig the decision, not as something that trumps all other arguemnts. It is explicit from WP:AFD and WP:NOT that any'' violation of WP:NOT is suficient to delete an article, not just notability or promotionalism--and any argment based on any such provision is therefore to the point, as distinct from ILIKEIT.
 * I think you mean more precisely the strength that should be given to such an argument. Even that is hard to answer in the abstract. It obviously depends on the degree of promotionalism. If promotional, it also depends on whether someone is prepared to rewrite the article & fix the problems. It depends  on  whether the article is satisfactory in other aspects.  Andd despite what you say above, if the article is fixable I think it does depends on whether the article is worth fixing.  We are limited in editors, and in their time, and by their interests.
 * I propose a somewhat different question. . Small variations to the notability standard either way do not harm the encyclopedia as much as accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign.    DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The 'either way' seems imprecise.  Shouldn't the proposal take a stance one way or the other: for the variation to keep, OR the variation to delete.  For example, I'm going to venture that we agree that an article should NOT get a variation towards keep based simply on the fact that the article is NOT part of a promotional campaign.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki8''' ...........................]] (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, but a non promotional article should if there is an chance at all of notability be moved to draft space for possible improvement; and, if not, the contributor given assistance in finding a better topic.
 * Let me try some other wordings: what I meant was  that being a little deletionist or inclusionist does not matter   as much as promotionalism does. It's ok to be somewhat inclusionist or somewhat deletionist and reject promotionalism entirely; it is not ok to be either somewhat inclusionist or somewhat deletionist  and accept promotionalism. You are, for example,  considerably more inclusionist than I about companies, and I probably more than you about academics,  and I consider that fine, & it's something  we should be willing to compromise about; but you are willing to accept promotionalism, and I do consider that wrong, and I think it something I would not compromise about.
 * Worded another way: the decision to keep or delete an article depends first upon promotionalism, and only if not promotional, about notability. I could word it in a single direction: An article should be rejected if it is promotional (regardless of notability ), and it should be rejected    if it is not notable (regardless of promotionalism). I consider all these statements more of less equivalent.  DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're getting close to agreeing on the proposed wording to debate. Lemme ponder a little bit and get back to you soon.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Another rewording: there are two positions I could support,and I've gone back and forth between them:
 * 1. Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourge people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone elsew ill create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here. It furthermore sends the message that if you you hire someone to write an article and they take money for doing this, and they write the usual unacceptable article such peoplewrite, then someone will fix it for you free,, while the guy who wrote the bad article gets the money. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The wording "Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted" is good, and should allow for a clear debate on that proposal vs. what I would call neutrality on how the sausage is made. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I had not finished. I said there were two positions I could support. The second is
 * 2. Promotional articles should always be deleted, unless they are very clearly about an undoubtedly notable subject, and some responsible WPedian is prepared to take responsibility for rewriting them. This would normally be done by moving the article to Draft space. This has the advantage of getting articles about the clearly notable subjects and increasing our coverage, while removing promotionalism and discouraging the bulk of the promotional editors, who are rarely writing about unambiguously notable subjects.    DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * oops! my bad.  This one would need some rewording to keep us focused.  Perhaps something like Articles with promotional issues should always be deleted if those issues are not fixed by the closing of an AFD discussion.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * as an alternative, you mean, to  always be deleted.  But I think everyone would agree on that. The question where we disagree is whether we should even allow them to be fixed unless the subject is very notable.  DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * would it be fair to say the general question is: "Promotionalism Overrides Notability" vs. "Notability Overrides Promotionalism". Where Promotionalism meaning an article with promotional content issues.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

SAGE Encyclopedia of Economics and Society
Hi Dave! It appears that you have removed the SAGE Encyclopedia of Economics and Society. I understand that text could have benefited from some revisions to avoid copy right complications. I was wondering if you can roll-back the page so I can revise the text. 21:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmajlesara (talk • contribs)
 * , the entire contents of the article consists word for word of the "abstract " on the publication's web page. You can find it there. But in addition to being copyvio, it was essentially promotional, and you'd do much better to forget about trying to revise it and start over. There are surely reviews of this important publication to use for sources.  DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So, I can recreate the page? Bmajlesara (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you can and you should.  DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note DGG, there are issues of an undisclosed COI here and probable meatpuppetry. The publication is tied to an author who has apparently been trying to add himself to Wikipedia for most of the past year, so I'd recommend that if they do try to recreate the page it should be through AfC at most. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

patrolling
...
 * http://tools.wmflabs.org/nppdash/patrollerinfo/result.php?user=SwisterTwister may be helpful here? It's not yet finished (new features planned) but it at least lists the latest 500 pages patrolled by a user -- samtar talk or stalk 09:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I will note about 75% of these are by the same user who largely started then at the same time, see the patrol logs for yourself. SwisterTwister   talk  16:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for some etiquette advice
Hello DGG. I'm contacting you out of the blue hoping for some advice (at your convenience), concerning an ongoing RfC you commented on about two months ago (and in a related arbitration dispute).

My question isn't about your opinion on the RfC itself, actually, but rather your analysis on the bold use of a guideline to re-assert the deletion leading to the RfC. Since we agree on some content points, I'm aware asking your advice might be misconstrued as "canvassing," but that's not at all my intent - just more a question of etiquette, if you don't mind? I can't help but notice you seem very knowledgable on matters of neutrality and the manual of style, so I have a hard time imagining any advice you might give being dismissed for being biased (and if I've crossed a line with this comment, don't hesitate to let me know so I can attempt amends somehow.). To the question: I've read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE several times, and it seems to absolutely support a comment an editor recently made in the side arbitration discussion (that in short, the term under contention should remain out of the lead until consensus clearly supports its addition):


 * ''"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis."

I absolutely believe my arguments are "good-faith BLP objections," and so I would feel correct again deleting the term myself. That said, though, the topic is contentious, and I'd rather not sully my account's repute by doing something that will get me accused of bias or improper POV pushing. To give you context, while I have plenty of hours conversing in RfCs, I've never closed one or led one myself before this, and so I regret my personal experience here is limited. So in a nutshell, would it be wrong of me (i.e. incredibly rude, as the creator of a contentius ongoing RfC), to use that guideline as my rationale for again asserting my deletion until consensus is met? Thank you in advance. Yvarta (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am primarily concerned about content, not procedure; I am concerned about having orderly procedure only so we can deal with content more effectively. I am concerned about the effect of guidelines, not their wording; I am concerned about wording only to the extent it clarifies the intent. I think a considerable part of our guidelines are worded too starkly, omitting the necessary nuance that is needed to lead  to effective application of their spirit and purpose, and I think this is particularly true of the BLP guidelines, which were instituted in essentially a moral panic.
 * As an admin, and as an arb, I follow the rules, but I interpret them to achieve the best we can to equitable and rational solutions, a goal that usually involves some degree of compromise--sometimes, even compromise with injustice.


 * I can't see any other approach as rational, because Wikipedia rules are not a unified code compiled by experts, but a hodge-podge of empirical attempts at dealing with questions as the arise, and therefore comprise a maze of contradictions. But, we do have one fundament rule to justify my approach to problems: IAR. Without it, I would not attempt to do anything substantial here except as a writer or copyeditor.


 * Keep to the basics: close in the way that you think will yield the best result for WP. I've already said what I think it to be.  DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful advice, DGG. I typically just approach guidelines as set in stone, but as you point out, it would be absurd to assume every case study fits every guideline's wording to a T, or that some interpretation isn't required in many cases. I will consider how to approach the issue in the way that most benefits the project overall, and best meshes with the guidelines' intent. Best, Yvarta (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Rodeway Inn and Suites, Fort Lauderdale Airport and Port Everglades Cruise Port
Are you sure that was about an organisation? It seemed to be about the facilities themselves to me. Adam9007 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A hotel is a business as well as a building. Some of the worst promotionalism was removed after I tagged it. Just as an exercise, I'm going to restore and clean it, though there will not be much left. Let's see if the promotionalism  returns.  DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I get a whiff of puppetry here. There's this article, about a Choice Hotels franchisee, written by an account which had been inactive for over a year. And last week, Richchoice (obvious COI username) created Ascend Hotel Collection & Cambria Hotels & Suites two other Choice franchises. The sudden flurry of activity on Choice Hotels topics, the similarity in username structure (Common English nickname + brand name?), the promotional tone of the articles... it all seems too coincidental, yet not concrete enough to raise an SPI. Cabayi (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * what you need for a spi, is to check for identical peculiarities in wording and so on. It might help also to run a careful check for copyvio on the current version of Econo Lodge before  it is either  cleaned or redirected or, most likely, deleted. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Question on news release tag
Hi, DGG, for Paul T. P. Wong's biographical page, you added the "news release" tag a week ago. In response, I have attempted changing or deleting some wording that may have a promotional tone. Can you give any further guidance on which sentences/sections are promotional? Thanks. Evelyn Mak (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For academics, we usually mention only their 4 or 5 most cited papers, including the number of citations from Google Scholar or the like. We include only major awards. We don't describe the accomplishments of their children.
 * I have also tagged your other articles as advertisements, as all of them seem designed to promote Wong's theory. Unless you revise them to include criticism, remove promotional praises, remove therapeutic claims that do not have sources that meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS, and remove connections with earlier theories depending only on Wong's works (or change them into statements like "Wong considers that...", I am likely to list them for deletion as promotional.
 * It is also promotional to make redirects from unlikely search terms that have not been used as alternative names.
 * As this set of interwoven articles is the only topic you have worked on, it is reasonable that I ask you whether it is possible that you might have some connection with the subject. If you're just a fan, and have no business, professional, or employment connection, you might want to declare it, but you need not be specific. If however there is any financial connection, please see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure, which require that the specific connection be described. In such circumstances, you would also be well advised to write articles on the subject in Draft space.  DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As a newbie on Wikipedia, I'm thankful for your guidance. I'll be making those edits shortly. Yes, that's completely reasonable. I am Wong's research assistant. Wong has been asked several times by different people to create Wiki pages on these topics, so we're finally getting to it. Appreciate your help in making these of encyclopedic quality. As well, when I have completed the edits, do I refer back to you or undo the tag myself? Thanks. Evelyn Mak (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a number of problems here; it may take me a day or two for a full answer.  DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Genuinely appreciate your help. Will be checking back here every so often. Evelyn Mak (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, have you have a chance to look over the articles Paul T. P. Wong, Second Wave Positive Psychology, and Meaning Therapy?


 * In the meantime, I have done more work on the Meaning Therapy article by adding a section on criticism, removing some external links, and generally looking over wording. Would this be sufficient or would other changes be needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelyn Mak (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG, I have edited Paul T. P. Wong according to your above comments (i.e., removed information about his family, trimmed down list of awards and honours to only reflect major ones, and updated publications list to only reflect top 5 papers, and did some general editing to remove any phrases that from my POV could seem promotional). Please, could you take a look again and give any further direction? Many thanks for your guidance. Evelyn Mak (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * recheck

Hotels
@DGG - What do I need to do to create a Wikipedia friendly page at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ascend_Hotel_Collection&redirect=no ? I'm so confused why it keeps getting deleted/redirected. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickalan (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * give me a day ortwo on this also, please.  DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As with above, an editor who's been fairly inactive for the longest while piles in on recreating a recently deleted Choice Hotels brand. I can't see the deleted versions or those of its sister brands, and copyvio doesn't seem to be the issue (as you suggested above), but it reeks of puppetry, sleepers, and the like. Cabayi (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The way to deal with companies is to write the article for the largest unit that owns all the others, with sections for the individual brands. The brands only need separate articles if they are particularly well known in their own right, more than the parent. It is possible that some of these are, but it is unclear if there is sufficient non-l material available to make good separate articles. The first step  in doing this is to improve the content in the main article.  DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Refresh !vote
Let's consider a new !vote type for AFD: Such a vote would only be valid for consideration if, in my opinion, it includes a pointer to a ready-to-go replacement. Your thoughts? -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * REFRESH - Likely notable topic with overriding issues. Delete in order to remove the current article content and contributor history from public view.  Then re-create with content from Draft:Example
 * I don't want to add more complexity to the system, or use new terminology. People close this way  already . We could put in the instructions an encourage them to do so. But I am very eager  to try to find some compromise between our positions, (I should rather say the 2 sides,since we're not the only people), because the current conflicts are tying up the work at AfD.
 * In order to use wording that's already familiar, I would support adding a button for Delete and encourage re-creation It would still be the understanding that plain delete does not prohibit re-creation or need approval to re-create,and Delete and protect is still available--though quite properly, we use it very little, mainly when there have been numerous hopeless tries.    DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

New problems with an editor
You may remember my problems with this user concerning articles on German artists and art historians. See also this edit from Dr Blofeld's talk page. I did not contribute to Wikipedia for several months. Now I added some information to the article on HA Schult, and one or two hours later my old opponent User:Rhode Island Red has reappeared on the scene, removing content from the said article, falsely claiming that major German exhibition catalogs and other publications are not reliable sources and such things (see, for instance, ) and now saying that the Washington Post article does not contain the removed information, although he himself included it in the main text of the article some years ago (see ). He even changed the wording of some parts of the text, thereby changing the original meaning supported by the given sources (see ). He also questions the notabilty of art historian Wolf Tegethoff (see ), presumably because I have created this article, and he continues questioning the notablity of articles on other art historians I have created (see ). I think it is high time to block the activities of this user. Do you have an idea what we can do? Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The main thing you can do is avoid getting this personal between the two of you regardless of provocation. Just work on each individual article without mentioning any editor's name at all. As for the issues, I've commented on the talk p. . If I need to go back there, just ask me, but try  not to guide me what to do.  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is now an edit war, as Rhode Island Red is still reverting my edits, though many reliable sources have been provided. What we need is a third opinion concerning the reliability of my sources. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow. I shall have to look at the article from the beginning.  DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Rhode Island Red has now violated the 3 revert rule. See the edit history of Gotthard Graubner. In order to show good faith, I'll wait for your opinion. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Violation of 3RR would require exceeding 3 reverts within 24 h. That is not the case. I regret having had to push it so close to the line but you have clearly violated WP:ONUS, failed to strive for consensus for your additions, and basically ignored the discussion process. This has been a chronic problem. You are also at the bright line of violating 3RR and have now been warned twice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Warned by you on my talk page, yes. I do not understand why Rhode Island Red has now removed all my well-sourced additions to the article on HA Schult (see ). Be that as it may, concerning the article on Gotthard Graubner, it is a historical fact that in 1959 Schult, Gonschior and Graubner were the first and only students in Götz's class ("Seine ersten Schüler sind Gotthard Graubner, HA Schult und Kuno Gonschior"). It is therefore self-evident that they knew each other well. As all three students later became well-known German artists of some reputation, they are certainly worth mentioning as classmates in the article on Graubner and elsewhere. Furthermore, in 1958, before moving into Götz's class, both Schult and Graubner had studied under Meistermann. So why has Schult's name been removed from the article on Graubner? Graubner had left Götz's class in 1959 before Richter and Polke began studying in Düsseldorf in 1961. This means that Graubner was not a classmate of Richter and Polke, though they tried, together with Konrad Lueg, to form an artistic collaboration (the Gruppe 63), but "in the end, nothing much came of Lueg's proposal". So they didn't form an artistic colloboration. ("Luegs Vorschlag wird letztlich nicht in die Tat umgesetzt; eine Gruppe 63 nie gegründet"). Some critics only mention Graubner, Richter and Polke because they are the most famous painters who studied in Götz's class. Their painting style differs. Graubner's style is much closer to Gonschior's than to Richter's or Polke's. Even Schult's style in some of his early works (see and ) is relatively close to Graubner's (see  and ). These are the facts. So would you please explain what is wrong with the following sentence: All this can be supported by reliable sources, although Rhode Island Red frequently removes this passage (see ). Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his fellow students being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior.

Warning to the two editors

 * I am now going to ask each of you to think--just think, but not say here--, why the question of just how closely associated the various people were at art school matters to you so much.


 * There are ways of wording this to avoid the issue, such as A was a student of X, at the same time that B was a student of X.  The degree of their relationship can then   be left open. It's relevant enough for the relationships of artists to mention, though we do not need to explicitly draw inferences from it. If "in 1959 Schult, Gonschior and Graubner were the first and only students in Götz's class" it is not necessary to actually say that they know each other well.  You should be able  to compromise on some such wording without my having to write it out for you myself.


 * I am going to repeat here the one specific opinion that I gave on one of the talk pages: An artist's bio as published as part of the catalog of a sole exhibition in a major museum is a RS for all purposes. Such museum publications are formal publications and are routinely used as reliable.  A bio published in a commercial gallery publication or part of a group show may, however,  not be reliable. If anyone disagrees with this, please  take to    WP:RSN which is designed for the purpose..


 * I now warn both of you that any mention of each other here or elsewhere will lead to a block. Discuss the edits. I also warn you that in interpreting 3RR, it's the meaning of it, not the exact timing that matters. Some admins may quibble about timing; I care about it being a war. Anyone who pushes it "close to the line" is likely to be blocked.


 * I now ask both of you to please stop editing these articles for the next 48 hours so I can look at them properly. This is intended as a temporary topic ban and I shall enforce it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I stopped editing the said articles. You are right that it is necessary to discuss the edits. My version of the disputed passage in the article on Gotthard Graubner is the following:
 * From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his fellow students being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior.
 * This includes only the facts without speculating whether these artists knew each other well. So I do not understand why this has been changed to the following version:
 * From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students.
 * This current version does not include the full information. The fact that Schult and Gonschior were Graubner's classmates in missing here. However, this information is of importance to art historians who frequently draw comparisons between artists. For instance, in this case it is interesting that Schult, as his early work shows, originally wanted to be a painter (otherwise he would not have moved with Graubner into the painting class of Götz), but later decided to be a performance artist, whereas Graubner und Gonschior remained abstract painters at heart. Furthermore, all three artists later exhibited at the documenta in Kassel and also participated in other group exhibitions. Interestingly, both Graubner's and Schult's art is influenced by the work of Caspar David Friedrich, one of the favorite painters of their professor Götz. So it makes much sense to mention in the Graubner article that Graubner, Schult and Gonschior were classmates in Götz's painting class. Just one sentence presenting all facts without interpretation. However, the article on HA Schult is more problematic, as much more information has been removed here (see ). Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

, please stop trying to guide my responses. If you do not  think I am capable of judging the material for myself, why did you ask my opinion? Please do not respond further until I have had a chance to re-examine it from the start.  DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * STILL NEEDS CHECKING

Pul (coin)
Dear DGG, if you need help with translation, you can count on me. Also, please see Pul (coin), its draft is a leftover.Barefact (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten to this one yet--I was planning to do a selective rewriting of the Russian article, not a full translation. If you'd like to  add the information from the ruWP, I'd be glad for the help.  DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Pete.harrison93

Thank you!
DGG, Thanks for moving my Whiting article! It is a relief to get it done, and to be able to focus on other things for a while. But hubby and I still plan to attend some meetings and editathons. See you there! Mfrm123 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

LA Times
Just FYI, in an offsite forum, I have criticized your statement claiming that the the Los Angeles Times is not a reliable source for non-entertainment news. You are welcome to respond here or there or both or neither. Cheers. -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's actually more than that: When we say a source is a RS for notability, the meaning is that we think it is sufficient to indicate that the subject in question is suitable for an article in an encyclopedia like WP. It depends as much on what you think suitable for an article in WP as on the source. Depending on what you want in WP, so you evaluate the sources for notability.
 * When I was a novice here, I thought the GNG very clever. But I soon learned how easy it is to use it for arguing in any desired direction.  DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And, very opportunely, I just saw Liz Spayd, "Reviewing Toaster Ovens,and Selling them, Too" (ThePublic Editor) New York Times Pct 26, 2016, from which I quote "The New York Times ... earlier this week ... purchased a popular website called The Wirecutter that recommends a variety of consumer products to its customers....If a visitor to Wirecutter’s site purchases a product by clicking a link to, say, Amazon, then Wirecutter gets a percentage of the profit". So much for the reliability of the NYT  as a RS for notability: direct financial COI for the products it writes about. I didn't think things were quite this bad, DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)



Biocom being kept
This is the serious concern I was discussing, and would like to know how to solve this. The result was keep. As it is very clear, detail copy paste job from non-notable references (Cunard in this case for example) do not even mislead but extremely boring for few who come to AfD for vote. As people even forget what is there even to consider notable. in this case even after clear consensus/ numbers of deletion support as nominated by you and well presented thoughts by others. It is being kept with no significant values added. Now this will take another community time if we discuss it somewhere else. that is how such article are being kept and we are building this platform no different than paid media advertising. or a directory. even this profile has nothing to write for Wikipedia. Just some thoughts about such ongoing practices. Thanks.Light2021 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * same case with misleading one source copy paste / even vote was in support for delete. Articles for deletion/Kampyle (software) Light2021 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * at least 1/10 of AfD decisions are probably wrong,with an equal number in both directions. Given the decision making process at WP, we might improve this a little by wider participation, but we are not going to eliminate it. Some people honestly feel that even borderline notability is a more important matter than discouraging promotionalism.  People can use the  GNG  to get whatever result they want.  I recommend great caution in using Deletion review in anything that is not an utter blunder, because it can establish an unfortunate precedent.  DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for UnDeletion
On 18 September 2016 editor JzG deleted a wikipedia page entry about me (Renee Hobbs) and migrated it to User:Reneehobbs2002 without leaving a redirect. No reason for the deletion was provided nor was I contacted about the action. I do not see any discussion about this decision and it seems like the editor responsible for the decision, JzG, is taking a vacation from Wikipedia for a while. I was unable to find a place to leave a contact message. He suggests that you are the contact person in his absence. I would like to request undeletion. I believe my notability was discussed in 2009 and the decision was made to keep. In his notes, it says (rm. print-on-demand vanity press) but I'm not sure what this refers to as I have never published work with a vanity press. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FRenee_Hobbs Reneehobbs (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Renee Hobbs


 * , that AfD was in 2009, and I am not at all sure that the article would meet current standards. And we are much more stringent than we were then about accepting autobiographies.    But,, I do not think the way you removed it was really justified; it would have been much better to nominate it for AfD2 and have a proper discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a trivial autobiography, I always think it is kinder to userfy it than to delete it, per nn-userfy, but I don't feel especially strongly about this specific case. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Karjee Eduvetures Pvt Ltd
The article didn't make it clear, but Karjee Eduvetures Pvt Ltd provides vocational training. Does that qualify it for the educational institution exemption from A7? —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * unless they give degrees of some sort, we have not usually considered them as such. And the article was in any case hopeless. After you removed the blatant advertisement (which was probably copyvio as well), all that was left was a directory entry. Woul,dn;t it have been easier just to delete as G11 in the first place? DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. My experience with A7 has been the broadest possible definition of educational institution: even middle/intermediate schools, which don't give degrees/diplomas, qualify for the A7 exemption, although they usually get merged to the parent district's article.
 * The original editor pared back the blatant advertisement. That's why I gave the article a chance to survive and didn't delete it outright under G11. —C.Fred (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * to check

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: John McAfee SwiftMail speedy
Hi DGG -- I deleted this article under A7 but the author, User:Andrewnpeters, requested an explanation of the deletion. I've given a generic one but thought you might be able to offer more useful advice as you have a lot more experience in this area. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate any advice on this topic. Thanks. Andrewnpeters (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * STILL NEEDS CHECKING

06:37:00, 16 November 2016 review of submission by Proboscidian
I have eliminated the section describing Dr. Patel's advocacy of early screening for prostate cancer, his honorary titles, some description that may seem subjective and the contributions to textbooks. Although you commented that only the most cited articles should be listed, I am not certain how to handle this because the number of publications is one of the factors establishing his notability. Also, the biography of another surgeon of similar notability in the same field lists a similarly large number of publications (see David B. Samadi)
 * You list the 5 most cited papers, along with the number of citations based on Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar.  DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Argument
Sorry, wrong tail, wrong animal. The thing about newspapers in Australia is we actually have them as subjects, and as valuable WP:RS, so we actually do tend to have them as notable in both directions.

The project by Australian libraries and the National Library of Australia, and the Trove project is quite a large project that specifically makes most Australian newspapers, current or dead, as notable items by the very process of digitizing them, you were correct to catch the crap text of that one, but it only takes a few minutes on Trove to work out whether the pr rubbish 'fits'. Some states and some librarians are more hard working than others, and the ones that slip the check (like the one you caught) are getting less in number... If you have any sense of Australia - one of the 'weakest' states when it comes to specific overall wikipedia editing is new south wales - the paradox being List of newspapers in New South Wales is the elephant in the news south wales room. cheers JarrahTree 02:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am very open to the argument that we should have articles about every journal or newspaper that anyone is in WP is likely to use as a source, so people will know what it is and can have a start at forming some estimate of reliability. I've given up on this, for lack of support, but I'm willing to make another try at it. Basically, it would probably best be handled as  a specific exemption to the notability requirement, rather than trying to fit it into the boundaries of WP:N. However, I also strongly feel there is a virtue in having some degree of consistency, so I tend to support the established standards until there is consensus to change them--though I sometimes push a little at the boundaries. We have never had the practice that a newspaper becomes notable by existing, no matter who publishes it. That it's covered by the comprehensive  project of the National library is an argument that amounts to INDISCRIMINATE. I'll join you in a general revision of this, but not it making one particular newspaper an exception.  DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your considered response. It is not an easy one, for example the New South Wales List has so many over-laps and crossovers, many titles can be incorporated into one item about a number of newspapers that succeed each other in one location for instance.  Like most things here on wp en - your catch of a crap article (it was just recentism and poorly written with no refs) was good and appreciated ! Your boundary pushing was appreciated in this case, as I was able to dip into the regional dynamics and the Trove resource to give - as you say the 'argument'. I would say that the NLA Trove inclusion is not necessarily 'indiscriminate' as where some versions of some newspapers are simply components ( a short run of the same newspaper under a different title for 10 years say) in most cases the persons editing the articles on the major title (not component titles, so to speak) are sufficiently aware that what makes an article about the newspapers in Orange, New South Wales - might actually refer to a number of titles of earlier preceding newspapers in the final amalgamated or successor newspaper.  By that level of discrimination I believe Australian newspaper articles that have signs of being part of the projects like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/State_Library_of_Western_Australia  in turn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/State_Library_of_Western_Australia/The_Newspaper_Project would be very careful about low levels of the  appropriate properties of being in N territory.

I believe that the projects mentioned above can stay well above and away from running into questions of N or otherwise - and the lists in something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatbelt_newspapers - they dont necessarilyneed or have to all end up as separate discrete articles - in my opinion, some are too low on the level of N regardless of any criterion. Hope that gives you a clue as to the territory that I come from - cheers JarrahTree 09:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Land Governance
Dear DGG, I saw your comment on my draft land governance page. You state that land tenure and land governance seem to be the same, so why bother with a land governance page? But there is a difference: the difference between a social(/economic) phenomenon and the policies that try to regulate that phenomenon. In the broad sense of the word, tenure refers to all the paterns of ownership, land concentration and land use that are actually the case; land governance is the whole of policies, legislation and procedures that are in place to regulate access to land and settle competing claims. See for instance the FAO website: they speak of the (much-hyped) 'Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, ...'. In other words, tenure is the object of governance. Can the above convince you (and/or Zppix - I don't know why you made the comment, since Zppix was the reviewer that declined my submission) to accept my submission, after all?

Jur Schuurman (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , Just as nobody owns a page, no one controls  review of a page. In fact, it's generally  better for subsequent reviews to be done by different people, because the purpose of reviewing is to try to ensure that articles accepted into the encyclopedia will not be challenged--or, at least, not successfully challenged.  I don't see that the FAO title is decisive, because if taken as a definition, it would cause the article to be titled Governance of Land Tenure.  If I were to try to make a distinction based on the material in the two articles   I would say that Tenure is the legal system, and Governance the economic and social basis for it, which seems to be the meaning of the boxed material "Statutory vs. customary systems" in your article, and seems to be  the opposite of what you said above. I think you need to clear up this confusion before the article would make sense in an encyclopedia .  DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * to check

Freshdesk
Hi DGG, thanks for your valuable suggestions for the draft article Freshdesk. I have made the changes accordingly. Thank you. (Barath Rajendran (talk)
 * , I made some additional improvements, which give it a chance of passing afd. Personally, I am very skeptical of the independence of the sources, which are mostly based on Press Releases, but others may feel differently. What I am going to do is accept it, and then send it for a community discussion at WP:AFD.  DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for your feedback, can you guide me on how the resources should be, so that instead of getting deleted, we can improve the article. Also, i generally take examples of other company pages for reference before writing it. In general, i too always except the best articles to be in wiki, i need support from you all to make it an effective one rather deleting it. I took this as example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zendesk . Also i dont have any connection with any of these companies, i just want to contribute to the wiki effectively. User:Barath Rajendran ( talk ) 11:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove.  The least we can do is not add to them.  As you have found, this an create quite a problem for those who are looking for models for their own articles.  The only way I know that we can avoid it is to more quickly improve or delete the articles.  There is also a problem for subjects in fields where there are no or few truly reliable sources. INmany field, not justof business but of non-rofits and the arts, almost all the sources are based  on press releases--leaving only the organizations that are truly amous to have actually good sources. There are two schools of thought here--one is to lower our standards to include every medium sized company, and one to maintain or raise them. The fundamental principle at issue is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is basic policy. All the details in the notability standards ate just guidelines based on this, aoften with no fixed interpretation.
 * But consider Zendesk. That firm is on the main board of the NY Stick Exchange, the accepted standard for truly notable US businesses. Even so, it needs improvment: the company name is used too much, and there is too much detail about funding. It needs work also, but not deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for the explanation DGG, it was really helpful. I go with your words of maintaining or raising the standards. I Saw now the article was deleted before raising it to the standards, so what is the solution here to restore the page, because i feel writing it again wouldnt be the best solution. I need your guidance for the best articles to be on Wiki. User:Barath Rajendran ( talk ) 16:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

10:18:24, 24 November 2016 review of submission by Jrbleprg
Hi DGG, thank you for your feedback on my draft article Draft:Coop@home. It is my first article to try to create from scratch and I appreciate your feedback regarding the article's lack of substance. Would it be possible to let me know if you think each individual point should be fleshed out more or if more points should be added instead? Thanks again! Jrbleprg (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , I fundamentally do not think a separate article from the one on the parent Coop (Switzerland) is warranted. I just checked the German, French, and Italian WPs; the German and French do not give it its own article but mention it in one line in the main article; the Italian WP doesn't even mention it. The enWP has a paragraph on it already, and a redirect from Coopathome.ch. I will make another redirect from the alternate form. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi DGG,  I respectfully disagree. Online sites are very different from the brick and mortar companies that they have evolved from. A standard brick and mortar grocery business is conservative compared to what you see in online groceries (with their grocery walls, multi-lingual aspects (so important for a non-native speaker in a foreign country), and even food delivery on Sundays. Also, just considering the specific notability of coop@home, the top two countries in Europe with successful online grocery stores are the UK with Tesco.com, Ocado, mySupermarket, etc and then Switzerland with LeShop.ch and coop@home. I'd also like to mention a larger list of online stores which are listed at List of online grocers. I added coop@home today, but I suspect it will not stay on this list long, as periodically people do remove all the unlinked sites. If language is an issue, would it help if I were to add a German and French version? (The site isn’t in Italian, which is most likely why it is not mentioned in the Italian version of the coop article). Thank you for your thoughts on this. Jrbleprg (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * apparently the editors at all 3 WPs for the countries it serves think otherwise. I will look at the other entries you mention.  DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Castle of Odemira
Hi, I know this was deleted under G5, but do you think you can grab it and put it in a draft instead? I want to work on it and don't want to work from scratch. Pyrusca (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * this as well? Pyrusca (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing too fast
I recently made an appeal to all the new holders of the New Page Reviewer right to address the monumental backlog. As I feared, some have decided that machine gun reviewing is the answer. I've just warned one for reviewing many articles at a cadence of one every 4.28 seconds. I'll warn them a couple of times and if they still don't slow down I'll take the tool off them again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * maybe can do a programmed edit filter limitation of 4/minute--there are times when it makes sense to go fairly fast.  DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've started at the back of the queue where things can go fairly fast, although not every 5 seconds. However, as always, one seemingly simple review task often leads to yet more time-consuming issues. Observe . A "new" editor had removed the redirect to leave a blank page . A check of their other edits found they had pulled this with multiple other redirects related to the same person, , . Then I discover that the editor is almost surely a sock. See the recently re-opened Sockpuppet investigations/AdnanAliAfzal. UGH! Voceditenore (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , that's precisely what hppens when page patrolling is done correctly - one thing leads to another and it's possible to discover all sorts of nasty things. Problem is getting patrollers to do anything other than just click on the 'Reviewed' button. I've spent 12 hours today on Page Curation and I'm finding that the quality of patrolling is just the same as it was before we handed out the new user right. Perhaps we should be supporting the WMF development of ORES - but that's a solution that's probably still light years ahead.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, . I was just having a moan SMirC-smile.svg. However, the time-consuming nature of reviewing properly means that many of us NPRs who are primarily content editors simply cannot afford to tackle more than a few of these per week—otherwise, we'd have no time for anything else. The NPRs who aren't significant content editors or administrators generally don't have the experience (or inclination, I suspect) to do the more detailed, laborious stuff. I'm not sure what the solution is. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I reviewed about 11 articles in an hour and a half a couple of hours back, from the back of the queue - including finding ISBN, downloading a book cover illustration, and linking from author name, for a novel; adding redirects from abbreviations for several; challenging a COI Username;, fixing a weird home-made infobox (well, half-fixing and then asking at Helpdesk for more info); adding entries to dab pages;, creating at least one new dab page; etc etc. All quite fun but takes a lot of time. Perhaps I should review more minimally, but that would be less satisfying, though it would hit the backlog better. Pam  D  15:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed,, I also do about 10 an hour. I think that's the way most of us 'oldies' go about page patrolling. Like vandalism patrolling though, many patrollers, appear to think NPP is just another whack-a-mole. It's anything but. But that's what the community does not recognise each time we try to introduce measures to regulate it. I think DGG's suggestion of an edit filter might not go amiss. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A partial solution is what we have in a few workgroups: WP:Deletion sorting. This can easily be applied to Drafts as well as articles, since it is based on keywords, not categories. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/NYX Cosmetics
I went over the article in question, and sourced all statements to apparently reliable sources, while removing anything that sounded promotional. I would appreciate it if you would take another look at the article. Edison (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * this will have to be tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Edison (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * closed as non-consensus on Dec 21
 * to relist

Request on 15:17:49, 1 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sam Perkins
Hi, David -- Thanks for the feedback. In light of your comments, I substantially cut and condensed the Matt Rizai entry. Thanks for having another look. Please let me know if I've addressed the issues you raised. Please note that the sources cited are independent, reliable and published. - Sam

Update: I'm adding more sourcing. I'll repost when I'm done. My apologies!

Sam Perkins (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * awaiting re-review  DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Unilever Brands problem!
This is the problem of the article List of Unilever brands. It is not use of en dash of some brands in Unilever article brands!!! cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 08:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (Talk page watcher) : I corrected the article by changing the em dashes to en dashes (diff). Cheers, North America1000 12:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers to you!!! cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 02:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources?
David, what do you think of this edit? --Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * utterly absurd.  DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Would like some assistance
There's a fairly-new editor - User :Usman Khalil - who is trying his best to follow WP's rules & guidelines about doing some paid-editing. He has been very open to adjusting his editing and placing the proper COI notices onto his edits etc. I came across his edits on Frederick Achom a while back and have been mentoring him from time to time. I would appreciate it muchly if you could maybe keep an eye on his edits & his talk page. I am concerned that he will inadvertently run afoul of some rule and get blocked or whatever. My most recent thread on his talk page is User talk:Usman Khalil - I posted how I thought he should proceed going forward and just wanted to make sure that this was correct. Thanks & cheers - Shearonink (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will get there tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * still pending  DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Related to this, see here. DGG, I'd be interested to hear your views on this - I think this is the most coverage an edit-a-thon has ever had. Reviewing the articles created would be an interesting exercise. Though many are being created on other language Wikipedias. Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * from the relatively small list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/29 I identified one  entry I consider really dubious, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabia Salihu Sa'id; I may nominate a few others, where only the publicity for the BBC list makes for notability. I very strongly support adding notable women to WP,and there are thousands of them without having to add the non-notable ones to fill an imagined quota.   DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are more. Not sure how many in en-Wikipedia, but the claims were 400+ across all Wikipedias. I added 11 more and someone just added another one. See here. There will be more. 138 pages here. Some haven't had the BLP category added. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A late follow-up. It looks like the total number for en-Wikipedia was around 200 articles and drafts here. Surely enough there to consider now and to draw some new conclusions of some sort? Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * to check

Trying to be patient...
Perhaps you can have a look at User talk:JzG. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * in process  DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point
David, not sure you're following Guy's talkpage, but I think he has a point here. What do you think? --Randykitty (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * he does not, and I've explained why,  DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at this
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination) and this connected diff. --Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes please! Can you believe Wikipedia was declaring that a journal was notable because it had an impact factor of 1?!?! jps (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * closed as non-consensus on Dec23. 

A kitten for you!
Your help with our Black Lunch Table editathon was very much appreciated! Thanks!

Heathart (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Biocentric Universe merge - procedural question
Hi, I was involved in the AfD discussion of biocentric universe. The result was Merge to Robert Lanza. One of the other editors, who was arguing for Delete, blanked the page and made it a redirect to Robert Lanza, which I understand. However, since the AfD result was Merge, not Delete, today I chose a greatly reduced selection of material from the article and incorporated it into Robert Lanza to create this version:. This included eight additional references, including adding references that are critical of the biocentric-universe hypothesis. Nine minutes later, the same editor reverted my addition, citing UNDUE. (Please note that a subsequent re-addition by an IP user was not me, which I encourage you to check.)

Is this how a Merge is supposed to work? It seems like this editor took it upon him/herself to change your Merge decision to a straight Delete decision, and having already reverted the IP editor's re-addition, is now edit-warring. You wrote in the AfD decision, "The opinions are irreconcilable, and further discussion will not clarify anything. In such a case, the compromise solution has advantages." This editor is refusing to compromise. Any clarification on this case would be appreciated.  -Jord gette  [talk]  21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * no, it is not how it is supposed to work., but it's been known to happen. It happens frequently enough that it has a name "smerge" (for "submerge") The closing admin unfortunately has no right to actually control content in such cases, no moe than any other editor--it's one of the gaps of the system. But I'll see what I can do.  DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Might it not be a good idea for Jordgette to get the eyes of more editors involved? If an incipient edit war is forming, I have found that starting a Request for Comments or asking for a third opinion on the destination talk page sometimes helps.  I hope sticking my $0.02 in here was OK.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The Explore article
hey. at the AfD you said you think there is a way to edit the article that will make clear how flakey it is; something about listing the titles of the top-cited article or something. I would be interested to see what that would like if you would be interesting in doing that. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The silly thing is, I would really like to have a neutral article on this. People keep citing it on Wikipedia (not often, but enough that I have to check every couple of weeks) and a properly neutral article that made clear just how fringe it is - as if a glance at the cover were not enough - would be a boon. The problem is that I simply cannot find the sources. Science, in the main, simply ignores obvious bollocks. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to give it a try later today.   DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Congrats
You and Brad both on ArbCom. This is a Good Thing. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom
I would just like to say how genuinely pleased I am that your services have been retained again. I just hope that another 2 years in that irrenhaus won't drive you bonkers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

AfC
Hi. Have just gotten back to reviewing articles at AfC. Is there a new process for checking for copyvios? When I was last reviewing, Earwig's program had become unreliable.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 23:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, and the copyvio bot has still been working excellently for me (I believe it was fixed afterwards). SwisterTwister   talk  00:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ST. I thought it had been as well, but I got the exact same 1% on 4 straight articles, so I suspected it might still b broken.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion with no explanaiton. Re-doing page. What must I do?
Hello,

Yesterday I wrote an article for "John D. Chisholm" and it was marked for speedy deletion. I tried to contest the deletion and make modifications to the article. I also left messages on the talk page requesting information on how the article should be changed. I didn't hear anything back before the article was deleted.

I am going to write the article again, making absolutely certain list only facts that can be corroborated from a verifiable online source. I would please like some feedback before it is marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clkndggr (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your current version is better, but you need to emphasize the key factor in showing him notable, which is his book. Find some reviews, and add them as references. don't quote from the reviews, though. Just list them. The patents are only significant if they have been substantially exploited.  As for style, try replacing most of the "Chisholm"s with "he". Try to avoid constructions like "would receive" or the like. Put references in the form specified by WP:REFBEGIN. If it has been published in a publication like a journal, use cite journal, not cite web. Include vol., year, and page when possible.
 * When ready, enter it as a Draft, using the WP:Article Wizard, and it will be reviewed before going into main space. That will give it a better chance.  DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * to check

Transition Design deletion
Hello DGG, I am the originator of the Transition Design wiki page, which I believe you deleted a few weeks ago. The article was, I think, originally posted in 2013 and required many additions/updates, I have now completely rewritten it and reorganised into a draft version. I have been a bit remiss in not keeping it updated to reflect activities and developments over the last few years. I hope to repost the article in the next few days, but am unsure if it is better (and indeed possible) to repost the original Transition Design article, or whether to create a new entry for this updated version. Please could you advise.

I have, I hope, addressed the various arguments that were made in favour of the article's deletion, although, not being an experienced Wikipedia user, I am now having difficulty in tracking down these comments and ensuring they have all been addressed. Contrary to some of the comments, to mention just a few things (which will be given more detail in the article) Transition Design is not simply a Phd strand in a design school developed by a single professor, it is an idea that originated in 2005 in Ireland, and in recent years has become a major part of all levels of the Carnegie Mellon design curriculum, where it is being taught and researched by multiple professors; it has now been incorporated into multiple design curriculums and research labs all over the world; several partnerships have been made between universities for the research and development of Transition Design; there have been two international Transition Design symposiums, one in Pittsburgh and one in Devon, UK, involving academics from many universities as well as practitioners and researchers, and there will be a third symposium in a few months in Barcelona; many keynote talks on the subject have been given at conferences organized by universities and professional and research associations; dozens of invited lectures and workshops have been given all over the world; many papers by different people have been published on the subject, including multiple peer reviewed papers; and it is also finding its way into design practice having been taken up by the AIGA, the largest organization for professional designers in the USA with 26,0000 members (here is a link to their page the AIGA 'A Complete Primer on Transition Design, http://www.aiga.org/what-is-transition-design )

The deletion of the article has created a good opportunity for completely reworking it and bringing it up to date, and I hope this version meets Wikipedia criteria. Neodig (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * An article might be m=possible,but what you have written in your user space is advocacy, not neutral description. You need to say what it is, not why it is important. As a start, I'd suggest aiming at 1/3 the current length. My experience here is that articles on new intellectual movements iare much more likely to suceed in proportion to the brevity.
 * More particularly 1/ most of the history section belongs, much abbreviated, at the end, in a section on "Education in transition design". the only part that really belongs in "history" is the section on initial development. And do not list the speakers or speaker affiliations at a conference.  2/ don't use jargon,neither educational jargon in general nor jargon specific to the field.3/ Write in plain descriptive prose, not the sort of rhetoric suitable for an argument. There are a number of use of the construction "not only" or the equivalent. These should be taken as warning signs that the surrounding material is argument. Watch out also for phrases like "Transition Design argues...." or "Transition design identifies ..."   Try to omit introductory phrases and get right to the topic. 4./ the "Transition Design Framework ("section is inappropriate repletion and over-detai. I know you like it, but it's the sort of prose that would go into a graduate program description or the introduction to a textbook.  5./ There's too much about the Carnegie Mellon University program. Its detailed description belongs in its program description on its own web site.  6/ Try not to use sentence fragments in a bulleted list. That's powerpoint style, not encyclopedic writing.  7/ See WP:REFBEGIN for our standard reference format. While other forms are accepted, they give the impression that it is material from elsewhere re-purposed for WP.  7/Do not repeat references as external links.They belong as one or the other. 8/Try not to refer to unpublished material such as lecture notes.  8/ Do not use strings of references at the end ofg a sentence. That's appropriate for academic writing, not a general encyclopedia.  9./ If you have any professional relationship to the topic or CMU, declare it on your user page and the article talk page.
 * When ready, please enter it as a Draft. It would be better for someone other than me to review it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Transition Design Page
Hello DGG, I am the originator of the Transition Design wiki page, which I believe you deleted a few weeks ago. The article was, I think, originally posted in 2013 and required many additions/updates, I have now completely rewritten it and reorganised into a draft version. I have been a bit remiss in not keeping it updated to reflect activities and developments over the last few years. I hope to repost the article in the next few days, but am unsure if it is better (and indeed possible) to repost the original Transition Design article, or whether to create a new entry for this updated version. Please could you advise.

I have, I hope, addressed the various arguments that were made in favour of the article's deletion, although, not being an experienced wikipedia user, I am now having difficulty in tracking down these comments and ensuring they have all been addressed. Contrary to some of the comments, to mention just a few things (which will be given more detail in the article) Transition Design is not simply a Phd strand in a design school developed by a single professor, it is an idea that originated in 2005 in Ireland, and in recent years has become a major part of all levels of the Carnegie Mellon design curriculum, where it is being taught and researched by multiple professors; it has now been incorporated into multiple design curriculums and research labs all over the world; several partnerships have been made between universities for the research and development of Transition Design; there have been two international Transition Design symposiums, one in Pittsburgh and one in Devon, UK, involving academics from many universities as well as practioners and researchers, and there will be a third symposium in a few months in Barcelona; many keynote talks on the subject have been given at conferences organized by universities and professional and research associations; dozens of invited lectures and workshops have been given all over the world; have been many papers by different people have been published on the subject, including multiple peer reviewed papers; and it is also finding its way into design practice having been taken up by the AIGA, the largest organization for professional designers in the USA with 26,0000 members (here is a link to their page A Complete Primer on Transition Design, http://www.aiga.org/what-is-transition-design )

The deletion of the article has created a good opportunity for completely reworking it and bringing it up to date, and I hope this version meets Wikipedia criteria. Neodig (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope to get there this weekend.  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * STILL NEEDS CHECKING

Not sure
…what more I can say to be allowed the chance to review. It seems I am being judged before solid evidence is in place. I not ignorant of the things suggested, nor do I harbour designs for things, outside the pale, as suggested. I was, as I have repeatedly said, drawn to the possibility of AfC work, by Robert's example. Have you seen his work, and his comments made in reviewing? This is the model being rejected, as much as anything else. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I already advised you, that what you should do is participate in AfD and Deletion Review discussion. This will enable you to se by example what the actual standards are for accepting articles, based on the fundamental WP:NO DEADLINE-- that WP is a work in progress, and that articles are expected to be less than satisfactory at the beginning, but to be able to be improved--the rule for deletion is deliberately worded unsourceable, rather than currently unsourced. This will also give you the opportunity to explain your desire for higher standards, and you might be able to convince people enough to change the consensus.   You can also continue to indicate problems with articles--it is important to indicate articles that need improvement, so people will be able to identify them and work on them. Most important, you yourself can work on adding sources to articles that need it, and clarifying footnotes where there are only general references. The development of the encyclopedia depends upon people who are willing to fix problems even more than it does on people who indicate them.  I and many other try to always make at least some minor improvement when we look at an article for whatever reason.
 * Over the years, I have often held different positions than the consensus, sometimes very sharply different, but I have always stated them as opinions, as in an AfD discussion. I think it would be altogether wrong to use them as a judgement. When I encounter a situation where I am called on to make a decision, and I disagree so sharply with what I know to be the standard view that I consider it hypocritical to state it, I pass over that item and let someone else judge.
 * Nor am I going to give quick judgements here about other people's work. But it is customary in all human groups for established people to sometimes be able to do exceptional things that less established people cannot.  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I am not interested in AfD and Deletion Review, and it is no one's place but mine to determine where I expend effort. I am pushing for a final, fair decision to work with Robert at AfC. Please rejoin that discussion, at that page. If rejecting me, you are also rejecting the example of those I have indicated as literal role models and mentors (including Robert, yourself, and Primefac). If rejecting my joining, please making clear the reasons for rejection within the accepted Criteria for Participants. Thank you. Cheers, and happy holiday. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * the reasons are that you have been applying improperly rigid standards. It is entirely my role as an experienced WPedian to make suggestions about where you (or anyone) can learn the standards here--its the same advice I have given dozens of other editors.It is possible that my advice is wrong, and that you are not in practice willing to follow our standards even when you learn them, but I give you athe benefit of the doubt, just as I do with others. I am puzzled that you   suggest that you work with me asa mentor if you challenge my right to give advice. I have given my opinion about your working at RfC, which is that you are not ready, and your attitude here proves it. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that I do not accept your redirect regarding working on a different Project is immaterial to whether I will ping you, to ask you the proper course of action in a review situation. Apples and oranges. Robert first, but also you and Primefac. (You are all that I know there.) Regarding the "you have been applying improperly rigid standards," you are arguing from facts not in evidence. This is precognitive conjecture frankly, as (i) every indication I have given in reviewing contexts, places me shoulder to shoulder, or even a bit more liberal, than Robert, and (ii) Iyou have no evidence from reviewing, because all of this unprecedented, microscopic conjectural character microanalysis, is just that—conjecture; I have not yet reviewed a single submission! Bottom line, I know the standards and will apply them, have argued I will, and give every evidence that I will. (Have you even looked at the Steelism draft, to the other examples given?) This is prejudice, in the formal, literal, technical meaning to the word, andI am tired of it. Please reply with any further comments at the page where the decision is being made. Happy holidays. I am done. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Leprof 7272 - Apples and oranges, maybe, and they are not that different, for which reason I don't like the expression. They are both fruit, and are about the same size.  A really irrelevant comparison would be apples and eggs or apples and chalk.  It is my understanding that you have been applying improperly high standards in the review of pages in article space.  It is reasonable to infer from that that you will apply similarly high standards to pages waiting to get into article space.  What is the difference?  Why do you so much want to do AFC, when your review standards have been criticized, and when doing AFD or DRV has been suggested?  (Alternatively, have you considered doing NPP?  With NPP, the pages are already halfway into article space, and you have to decide whether they are mosquitoes that need to be crushed.)  User:DGG - I am inclined to say to give him rope, let him do AFC, and see whether he hangs himself, brings in a few goats, snares a Sasquatch, or scales Mount Mitchell (which is normally a walk-up).  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * When someone asks my opinion, I give it. What I say is based not on my personal view of what WP ought to be like, or my personal opinion of the individuals involved. or of the subject; it is rather conservative mainstream advice designed to give people the safest path to proceed with the greatest benefit to Wikipedia. People may follow it or not as they choose. Similarly. when I am asked to perform an action, I do so according not to my own personal views, but according to my understanding of the mainstream consensus. There is a particular difficulty when I am asked to predict what someone is likely to do: I can only judge by experience of similar cases in and off WP, and whatI can guess about the individuals from their current actions; in doing this I must to some extent  consult my feelings as well as my reason--it can never be an entirely rationally-founded judgement. In the last two years, I have been particularly aware of it because the work of Arb Com consists almost entirely of questions of this nature.
 * It is my opinion, , that your current approach to WP is suitable to neither NPP or AfC. This is based upon several factors, most of which have been discussed, and I am not going to repeat myself--if I have been unable to get you to understand twice, a third time won't help.  Some haver not yet been discussed here, such as your view of what constitutes appropriate sourcing as shown in your tagging--others have discussed it, and since it is continuing, I will probably join in at the appropriate place.
 * As another issue, NPP and AfC are very similar, and it is my hope that the procedures will be combined. There are some interesting differences: at AfC, people are at least pretending to play by the rules. We do not have to make a yes/no decision, but rather a decision to accept it now or defer -- but only in a few circumstances actually delete. People do not take decisions not to accept anywhere as unhappily as they take decisions to delete, so it is easier to give advice. Errors are less consequential.  I think beginners are therefore safer at AfC, as presently constituted.
 * , you have the same authority as I in this issue. As is almost always the case among admins, here and everywhere else,  the two of us do not want to place ourselves in a situation of attempting to over-rule each other. We also --as is unfortunately not always the case among admins--are both people   who know we make mistakes, and we both are generally willing to consider other viewpoints.  I have only a few times in WP insisted on my opinion over the objections of others, and those have almost always been in situations otherwise impossible of resolution.   If you want to go ahead and give the right, I will not contradict you, but I advise you not to do so.   Further bad work at NPP will make the situation worse, and   marginal work is not going to be helpful.  DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Transition Design
Hello DGG, this is a copy of a message sent a few days ago, to what I think may have been an incorrect discussion page, apologies if you have received it twice.

I am the originator of the Transition Design wiki page, which I believe you deleted a few weeks ago. The article was, I think, originally posted in 2013 and required many additions/updates, I have now completely rewritten it and reorganised into a draft version. We have been a bit remiss in not keeping it updated to reflect activities and developments over the last few years. I hope to repost the article in the next few days, but am unsure if it is better (and indeed possible) to repost the original Transition Design article, or whether to create a new entry for this updated version. Please could you advise.

I have, I hope, addressed the various arguments that were made in favour of the article's deletion, although, not being an experienced wikipedia user, I am now having difficulty in tracking down these comments and ensuring they have all been addressed. Contrary to some of the comments, to mention just a few things (which will be given more detail in the article) Transition Design is not simply a Phd strand in a design school developed by a single professor, it is an idea that originated in 2005 in Ireland, and in recent years has become a major part of all levels of the Carnegie Mellon design curriculum, where it is being taught and researched by multiple professors; it has now been incorporated into multiple design curriculums and research labs all over the world; several partnerships have been made between universities for the research and development of Transition Design; there have been two international Transition Design symposiums, one in Pittsburgh and one in Devon, UK, involving academics from many universities as well as practioners and researchers, and there will be a third symposium in a few months in Barcelona; many keynote talks on the subject have been given at conferences organized by universities and professional and research associations; dozens of invited lectures and workshops have been given all over the world; have been many papers by different people have been published on the subject, including multiple peer reviewed papers; and it is also finding its way into design practice having been taken up by the AIGA, the largest organization for professional designers in the USA with 26,0000 members (here is a link to their page a complete primer on Transition Design, http://www.aiga.org/what-is-transition-design )

The deletion of the article has created a good opportunity for completely reworking it and bringing it up to date, and I hope this version meets Wikipedia criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neodig (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , as I said above, I hope to get to this over the holiday weekend. Maybe tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

RECHECK

Jeffrey Collé
Recently this Draft was removed from the Wiki. I was going to contest, but like the section said it was subject to be removed at any point after that flag was put on it. I was wondering if you would be able to provide the material as it was deleted, and I would like to completely rewrite the content. If it sounded too advertisey (if that's even a word) it was not the intention so I would like to clean it up. Thanks! Lmarotz (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll get there., probably tonight  DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

, you asked me about this a few weeks ago, but I didn't see it, ecause it was on the wrong place. Looking first at your article on René Dekker, it too is   promotional, and I would not have accepted it. The most important thing it needs is the removal of puffery--adjectives of praise do not add anything; just state the accomplishments. I'll look again in a little while to see the improvements. Colle has the same problem., along with being too personal, e.g. "to help achieve the appeal of his specialty homes, Collé uses...  He also prefers to... He says that this is in order to ... " That sort of wording is what would belong on his website, not an encyclopedia article. It did not help that the references were written in such a way that one could not easily see just where they were published--try using cite journal or cite web, not cite web. If you want to try again, first fix the Dekker article, and make another draft. , . DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

Aegis limited
Dear admin USER:DGG, Last time you deleted a company article Aegis limited, This article is live now with title "Aegis (company)" Please redirect Aegis limited to Aegis (company). Wishing a great year ahead and very Happy new Year 2017
 * Wikibaji 11:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talk • contribs)


 * I'll get there., probably tonight  DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking in, I must first suggest WP:PAID in case you are an employee or otherwise involved with them. This has been deleted several times now and Advertising and what's currently at the article is classic signs of it. First of all, their PR awards (of which are listed) mean nothing to us and it's clear they're only existing as shoehorned information. Next, the sources are simply published and republished PR, company announcements, intervirws and mentions (this is obviously simply by hovering over them). What we specifically need is actual substance in major news, nto something they either influenced or co-published. There's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone. To be blunt, carefully examining this finds nothing to suggest independent notability in an article yet. SwisterTwister   talk  21:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You asked me some questions about your editing. Here's the reply I also poted on you talk page

As has just been said, the first question is whether you are following our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure Considering that you are working on only on Indian companies in a number of different fields, the most logical assumption is that you are indeed an undeclared paid editor. This opinion is reinforced by several types of unacceptable editing behavior. (1)The content is promotional: encyclopedias ive information a general reader might want to know. This does not include the names of all the executives. Nor do they want a list of minor specialized prizes. (2)Re-creating a deleted article under a variant title in the apparent hope of avoiding page protection (3)Creating an article in your sandbox and then moving it to mainspace in the apparent hope of avoiding new page patrol (4)Creating articles in a pattern typical of promotional editors by adding entirely unnecessary and obvious see also's in the apparent hope that it will show up in additional searches. (5)creating un-necessaey and improper redirects, apparently o ive the impression of increased exposure. (6)and finally, re-creating articles previously created by an editor who has already been banned for being an entirely promotional editor, leading to the reasonable suggestion that you are the same person (or conceivably, a different person undertaking the same job for the company--which is proof of undeclared paid editing). I await an explanation--and a chance to look at your other articles. Since WP does not include advertising or promotion, entirely promotional editors are always blocked rom participation, as are editor who violate the terms of use. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * to check

Articles about businesspeople?
Hi : Back in January of 2012 you posted this on my talkpage: Come back, please, you've let yourself bye chased away by people who are opposed on principle to articles on businesspeople. Since you posted this message almost five years ago, I wonder if you have changed your mind since? I would appreciate a response on my talk page. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me