User talk:DGG/Archive 114 Jul. 2016

Jebamalai Vinanchiarachi
Would like your opinion on this SPA-created article. Books in particular look non-notable. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The only one in WorldCat is Myths and Realities, with only two holdings. I have no way of judging his career. WP:PROF is judged by reference to the international standards, which mean that relatively few people from less-developed countries qualify, though we usually evaluate them as generously as possible to compensate. but see the acknowledgements section of http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/Pub_free/The_performance_of_Nigerian_manufacturing_firms.pdf and similar cites from GScholar. Borderline, as I will comment if anyone opens an afd.  DGG ( talk ) 13:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Empty citation templates in Richard I. Levin
Hi, you have added empty cite templates in this edit: special:diff/727549188. That was wrong – citation templates don't work on their own, they need lots of parameters. As a result, error messages ' Empty citation (help) ' appeared in the article (do you use a preview before saving your edits...?) and the article was added to the Category:Pages with empty citations.

So I have removed those empty templates. If you meant to request a reference for facts presented, please use fact template instead.

Regards, CiaPan (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Comettor
I came across Talk:Comettor where Comettor was deleted on the 27th following the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of Mini-Cons. Only Comettor is not bundled at the AfD. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The only thing I intended to delete was the list, and I had no opinion, I was just judging the consensus for the list. I see no discussion or bundling of individual articles at the AfD. Looking at my deletion log, I see a large number of individual articles were deleted as well by my close.  I am not suee why the individual articles got deleted. I shall restore them all if there is no explanation. I think the closing script must be defective in some way . I use the script  User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js  DGG ( talk ) 12:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted a report at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Honor Society (social network)
When marking Honor Society (social network) for speedy, i incorrectly linked to Articles for deletion/Honorsociety.org rather than Articles for deletion/HonorSociety.org (note the CamelCase name difference.) My apologies for having wasted your time that way. I'm not absolutely certain that the new article is a full match, because I can't look at deleted articles, but that AFD addressed much of the sourcing I see in this new version. I didn't want to just slap another speedy tag on as a correction in fear that I would be seen as just posting the same speedy twice. Could you check the current version against the old HonorSociety.org? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for noticing. I took a further look at the article history of this and the earlier articles. It's clear promotionalism, and trying to evade create-protection, ; I deleted, protect all unprotected variants, and blocked as promotional. If you see this under any other username.title, please let me know directly and I'll deal with it, since I already know the history.  DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handling that. I will keep an eye out. Article creator seems pretty clearly dedicated to promoting Mike Moradian and his companies, clear COI duck-test material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

20:12:39, 1 July 2016 review of submission by Brenda haines
Hello, DGG. First, let me say how incredibly helpful the detailed responses have been on your talk page. Thank you for taking such time and care in helping all of us improve our submissions and generally making Wikipedia a stronger tool.

My colleague, Leah, has been working on the 4imprint, PLC, article. (In the interest of full disclosure: Leah and I work together and the article we are referencing is for a client. I realize that automatically poses a question about neutrality, so I want to be completely transparent about that.) We are genuinely interested in editing the article to make it a high-quality submission. Based on the feedback my colleague has received to date, we recognize the need to make significant edits to the article to meet the notability requirements and that it may not be possible at all. I've read your talk page description of notability and it has helped me understand in greater detail the chief issue we are facing here. My questions related to this are:

Is it possible for trade industry publications to be considered reliable, independent sources? Or, must the sources be mainstream media sources/scientific journals/research publications in order to qualify? (We currently use several trade industry sources in the article, which is what prompts my question.)

Likewise, can local media sources (e.g.: those that cover our geographic region) contribute to the requirement for "substantial" coverage? Or, by their definition are they unable to do so? For example, if a subject is covered substantially in a local newspaper story with a modest circulation, does that source generally add to or detract from the subject's notability?

If sources are used in another Wikipedia article on a company in the same industry, can we deduce they would be considered reliable and independent in another article? Or, do you use other factors to determine whether the source is considered reliable and independent in different articles? With gratitude for your guidance, Brenda (  User:Brenda haines  20:12, July 1, 2016‎) tude for your guidance, Brenda (  User:Brenda haines  20:12, July 1, 2016‎)


 * , there is no simple clear answer. Each article is considered individually, and the standards to be applied are interpreted by the participants in the particular discussion. And just as anyone can contribute to WP, anyone can join in a discussion. The net result is considerable variability, with particularly great inconsistency in some fields, such as organizations--and most particularly the one relevant here, commercial organizations.
 * The reliability of sources is discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard, WP:RSN, and, as is typical for WP, the information is found in the very extensive and unorganized archives of that page. As compared with  discussions of an individual article, the discussions here tend to be more focussed and usually attract expert participation.
 * The suitability of trade journals for showing notability depends on the journal,and on the article. A long objective discussion of a company, or a major product review, can sometimes count, especially in a journal of known importance and objectivity. But most articles in trade journals are not written in this manner,but as announcements of celebrations.  Similarly for local magazines and newspapers.  Almost all such magazines rely on routinely covering everything in their area, and are not written as objective independent discussions. For both, we are particularly dubious about interviews with the ceo, which normally are just a platform for giving the person an opportunity to say what they like about heir company. This is especially true for local business magazines. This is also true of local editions of major national news sources. There is a difference between, say,  a national story in CBS and a story in a local affiliate of CBS; I am particularly doubtful when I find something that was from a local affiliate is cited as just "CBS".  Even the NYTimes coverage of local NYC businesses especially in its  local editions is more uncritical than its coverage of national ones.
 * Do not go too much by other articles. 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. And even now, many articles get in that would be deleted if more carefully examined.  In particular, most of our articles on firms involved in any manner in advertising or publicity are considerable problems.


 * But an equally important problem with your article is not the sourcing or the notability: its the promotionalism. (Our current system does not make it easy to specify the very common circumstance that the two problems usually go together. One useful  definition of promotionalism  is that a promotional article is written to say what the company wants to say, whereas an encyclopedia articles is written to tell the reader what the general reader might want to know.
 * Promotional articles for non-notable companies are marked by an inclusion of minor awards: this usually indicates there are no major ones. Promotional articles focus of funding of the company, rather than what it has actually accomplished. They include many minor notices, trying to list everything they can find to make the company look more important. They tend to focus on rapid growth or future plans, rather than attained importance. It is much better to list only what is major. This is especially important for charities. There is no point in listing the minor charities all companies do in their communities. Similar for routine good practices, such as employee relations, or now-routine environmental standards.
 * as you will have realized, these requirements are much harder to meet for specialized b-to-b companies such as yours. There simply are not as good source as there are for consumer product companies, or those in fields with general interest, such as electronics or aviation.


 * In your particular case, there might be notability: there usually is for companies on the London stock exchange, and   firms  with a half-billion USD revenue are very often notable. In your case, you have a good source for market share in your field. That is not a formal criterion, tho it is one I would like to see us use more. (You need to indicate the relevant geographic area--I gather it's in the US.) There are some technical factors also that would make a better impression. See the technique for using multiple occurrences of the same reference is WP:REFBEGIN, and enclose urls in [  ] not < > -- < > is indeed the print standard, but it doesn't render properly in Wikipedia. Avoid using the name of the company repetitively in the article. I like "the firm"  (not the Firm) once each paragraph and the rest of the time "it" or "they". Avoid using adjectives of praise or importance; avoid using jargoion like "in order to grow the business"

As you know, I am not all that happy doing work other people are paid for. But I am interested in helping people learn how to use WP effectively, and WP articles are a specialized form  that people need to learn, for  there is no type of business writing that really matches. People learn to write to achieve a purpose, but writing for general information is a very difficult purpose to do well, because there is no obvious focus. And, as you've said, what I write here is seen by others also. Let me know when to see the next version: I judge the usefulness of my approach by how much   articles get  improved.  DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC) DGG, thank your for answering my questions and providing additional insights and references. That context is very helpful. I will the materials you've cited and work on revisions... with the goal of submitting an improved version for your review. Brenda Brenda haines (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong & Timothy Elisha McPherson Jr.
Hello DGG, Unfortunately our administration is still trying to figure out how best to use Wikipedia. We have noticed that the entry on our Minister of Finance, Timothy Elisha McPherson Jr., was recently deleted, and we see that you are having some discussion with regards to the Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong. Please be advised that the Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong has been an active state institution since 2014. The fact that the LUMI is scheduled for circulation in late 2016 does does preclude or exclude the current activities of the institution which is crucial for our current government. Furthermore, there has been no illegal activities involving this institution whatsoever. It is a very important component of Accompong's climate change initiative. Sadly, a small faction which is opposed to the Government's current developmental policy and climate change initiative has used Facebook and other social medias to create negative publicity against the government. We have taken legal actions in this regard, however, Ripoff Report does not remove postings after they have been posted, and our discussions with Facebook are ongoing. We kindly request that you re-publish the entry on Minister McPherson, and that you take no actions against the entry involving the Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong. As a micro-state with limited resources we do not have the ability to constantly be on top of your postings, talks and/or requests, however we shall certainly seek to comply with the procedures of Wikipedia. (comment added  23:33, July 1, 2016‎ by User:Maroon Master )
 * I have sent it for a community decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong. The consensus there will decide.  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted article
I recently made an article for the subject Brittany Renner and it was deleted. I'm trying to figure out why. The sources and everything were credible and I wanted to know if there is anything I could do to prevent this from happening again. Or is possible to remake the article and fix whatever is wrong with it? Userzero07 (talk) 08:40, 02 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It was written as an advertisement:"Renner also has her own fitness/lifestyle mobile app where you can get fitness workouts and see her lifestyle in real-time daily" with 9 external references linking to her apps and videos. We do not restore such material . DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see. That wasn't the objective of the article, I will need to remake the article it so it won't look like an advertisement. Was that the only thing wrong with it so that there will not be any problems in the future? Userzero07 (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

DGG, is it possible to reopen the article in draft form for me to edit? I haven't heard a response from you yet. Userzero07 (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Pankaj Naram
Hello DDG, I have modified the article Pankaj Naram as per guideline. Request you to have a look at this page Draft:Pankaj Naram and provide me your valuable  feedback. Naitikavyas (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)naitikavyas  —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * please see 's excellent explanation ofwhy the article is not improved. You are trying to write a promotional article, and the  you must stop.  Such attempts actually harm the subject you are writing about; if you can understand that,  you can ask the drafts by placing a line reading Db-self at the top.  DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Article A. Barkhudar
Hello DGG,

Some time ago you commented on my article - A. Barkhudar. I tried to follow the comments, also applied for WP:DCM permission(I wrote a letter again and still waiting), but still rejected. It would be important to hear your opinion concerning the improvements. If there is a need I can reason about all the changes and tries to address your comments. Thank you in advance, hope to hear from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairabarkhudaryan (talk • contribs) 13:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I made a comment there explaining what is needed. I appreciate your efforts, and I will see what I can do myself to deal with the formatting--it may be easier to do it than to explain it. I may need to ask you for help with the Armenian test. Please give me a few days to get to it.  DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Inre Draft:Komal Jha. North America1000 03:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sunday July 10: WikNYC Picnic @ Central Park
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Page Deleted - BookScouter.com
DGG,

You recently removed the page BookScouter.com. This is a page I've built using internal data with (admittedly) very few sources. There are a number of sources, just not that I had access to for a first draft. Many of our competitors, who are much smaller than BookScouter.com in terms of volume and significance, appear on Wikipedia. This is my first attempt at creating a page from which we can work from and begin to apply some more significant sources and materials. A third-party was sent the link to revisit and update the page, but due to the U.S. holiday weekend, they were unable to get to it until this week, but you have already deleted what content existed. Please don't so hastily delete pages. Please allow other readers/users a chance to review and update the content -- that is all I'm asking.

I appreciate your efforts in keeping Wikipedia relevant, and I welcome your updates and even feedback from the page so that it can be less of an advertisement, but pertinent to those seeking information regarding the book buyback space. BookScouter.com is (by far) the largest and most comprehensive book buyback price comparison tool that helps millions of college students and other users each year save hundreds of millions of dollars each year selling college textbooks and other books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StormtrooperTK421 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The material was removed not primarily for lack of notability but for promotionalism. An article devoted mostly to the features of how to use the site, and advocating the site's merits, and the importanceo of its services,  is considered to be  as promotion. Another  editor listed it for deletion,  and, as reviewing administrator, I deleted the article as is our policy.
 * Promotional articles tell people what the subject wants them to know, but  encyclopedia articles are addressed to the general reader, not a prospective user,  telling what they might want to know.   Be aware also of our rule on WP:Conflict of interest -- you should not have made the article in mainspace at all; I see you've begun anew in draft space.  Since there is some material that might be usable, I've copied your contents there.  Remember to declare your conflict of interest on your user page and on the draft, as required by our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure Remember also that articles are not accepted without references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements.   DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Question
David - are people considered notable when, on several occasions over the years, they have given multi-million dollar endowments to universities for professorships, medical research, and libraries like the Smithsonian, even though they may be low profile business leaders (founders and/or chairman and/or are council for notable companies & universities) but highly recognized as philanthropists? Atsme 📞📧 21:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Normally they have done something notable to acquire the money. Anyway, "multi-million" is not nearly enough to be called a philanthropist these day, certainly not if its the main notability. Using that term would seem to be puffery, and articles stressing it would normally be press releases.  DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It just seems to me there's a serious imbalance between what we're allowed to make notable, such as a relatively unknown sports figure or porn star while we delete BLPs about philanthropists who create endowments, support research, and/or help build and support educational programs, libraries and various other beneficial institutions to help advance humanity. Atsme 📞📧 02:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a very great imbalance, and I do not know anyone at WP who does not consider our imbalance absurd. But every person here has a different view of it: some consider us to have a prejudice against sports figures, because we do not accept articles on most college athletes; some against some forms of popular music, because we do not accept people who are considered interesting, but not yet made a hit recording ; some against academics, because we rarely   accept associate professors; some against authors, because we rarely accept them if they self-pubnlish; some against politicians, because we do not accept them even though they are a major party candidate for national office unless they should win; some against artists, because even those who will be considered significant do not for many years get into museum collections; some against local topics, because we do not consider local branches of nation organizations; some against geographic  features, because we do not cover every street in a city; some against  porn stars, because we use too narrow a list of awards, some against video series, because we do not make articles for every named character, and so on. And for every one of these there are people who consider that what we do include in that field greatly excessive.  For each example mentioned, I have my own position (though in one or two cases it has changed in one direction or another over the years).
 * Some of this is the inevitable result of relying on the WP:GNG, because the availability of references of the type we want varies in different subjects--even though in practice we do adjust for this informally, by varying the meaning of "substantial coverage," and "independent"  for favored or disfavored topics.


 * Myself, I think such reliance is an obsolete survival of the early unsophisticated days here, before people realized the difficulties that would come from our size and importance -- in fact, before people realized that our size and importance was even conceivable. We need to cover the most important in each field, and do it by some quantitative standard applicable to each. We have a fe: nSPORTS, NPROF, etc. tho we insist or trying to modify them or use them together with the GNG, which can yield some rather odd results, but does have what some people here consider an advantage, of giving plenty of room for argument. We would still need to balance the fields, andI can only think of the principle I quote from Sterne's The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman:
 * "So long as a man rides his hobbyhorse peaceably and quietly along the King's highway, and neither compels you or me to get up behind him — pray, Sir, what have either you or I to do with it?"


 * But increasingly, I have come to thin notability is not the main consideration for coverage: to quote myself this time, from many AfD discussions:
 * Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia
 * As applied, those topics lending themselves to promotion are those where we should be the most cautious, and the most restrictive. I include philanthropists, a title that anyone can claim who has a few million dollars and wishes the tax and publicity advantages of disposing of some if it to anything the world considers a useful purpose.   DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Logista
Hello, I have tried to create the "Logista" page, a company that is part of the Imperial Tobacco group (now Imperial Brands) and that is listed on the Madrid stock exchange. I had a better look to the Wikipedia rules and I think I have understood why my article was deleted. Could you please remove the deletion and allow me to modify it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88Rorschach (talk • contribs) 07:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Farai Mutamangira
I am requesting undeletion of the Article "Farai Mutamangira".

Here are my reasons:

1. The update(re-edit) to that article was my own original work. I never copied it, however the real cause of deletion was never mentioned or rather articulated to me. 2. My sources were very reliable and solid sources which include the American Bar Association, A book by Joerg Bauer and many significantly notable articles from leading newspapers in Zimbabwe and Southern Africa. 3. This was a complete re-edit of the article and I had requested that the article be reviewed again after the update. 4. I observed all the wikipedia policies on publications etc, but I am open to an articulation peradventure I could have missed something.

I really feel that the you should revise or re-check the article and its sources and bring to my attention anything I missed. I could have missed something so please DCG lets put our heads on together and do this is the manner adhering to wikipedia policies.

The article is my own original work with very solid references which you can also check and verify. It is not a direct copy from the referenced site and in no way similar whether in wording or context. Please may you articulate your reasons in a manner I may understand or you could help that we work on a draft together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oebryn (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , It was deleted for being advertising. "Farai Mutamangira LLB (Hons) ​UZ, ACIArb [1] is one of the most prominent and successful attorneys in Zimbabwe. He is a senior partner in ... an internationally accredited law firm providing first class legal counsel to individuals and organizations on the global arena.... now runs a very successful law-firm in Zimbabwe," The remainder of the article is written in similar language. There is no possible way that this is acceptable in an encyclopedia. Advertising or promotionalism is telling the reader what the subject would want them to think about him, but encyclopedia writing tells people what they might not want to know, in plain descriptive language, without the use of puffery. An earlier version of the article was deleted, properly so, for being an exact copy of his home page. This version was deleted for another reason: WP is not a business directory, and not a place for advertising.
 * As you have worked on no other subject, it is likely that you have some connection with him or his firm. Please read WP:Conflict of Interest, and see also our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. You may nevertheless start a new article by writing it according to the WP:AFC process as a draft, provided you declare your conflict of interest as provided by the rules. It is possible, though not certain that he is notable, according to our rules under WP:BIO, which require references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements.  DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for the prompt response. I wish many people were like you in expressing their views. I totally understood it and as I read back again i realised exactly what you mean. However, i wish to say to you that I am not connected with this person neither have I been paid to publish such an article. I will however revise the article and write it in a neutral point of view as it is and submit it for review. I will notify you is I need any help or for you to advise. I have a few other articles and would also hope to largely contribute to wikipedia and its community but as it stands I still need to learn a few things. Thanks and keep up the work. (Oebryn (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)).

Invitation to participate in Wikipedia mini summer program
Greetings DGG:



It appears you have participated in an editathon in the past. We are doing a mini research study involving past editathon participants to transform and improve Wikipedia. If this sounds like something quick you would want to do this summer, please sign up to our mini summer research program.

You can read more about our project here.

Together we can revolutionize Wikipedia!

Thanks & Cheers

Wiki crowdresearch (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88Rorschach (talk • contribs) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. I'm looking for an admin that may be able to close the discussion, would be you be able to or would you know anyone that could?  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   13:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Article
Hi DGG.

I got a notification that the article I created for the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs has been deleted because of promotional content. This is my first time writing content on WK and I'm not quite sure what kind of content is considered promotional. I don't mean to violate WK polices but could you please let me know what parts in particular were considered promotional? I tried to use neutral words and state facts. Please let me know your thoughts and recommendations, as I would still like to submit something for this page.

Many thanks!

Melanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristerm (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 8th Khangser Rinpoche (July 8)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:8th Khangser Rinpoche and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:8th_Khangser_Rinpoche Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tseung_Kwan_O&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:8th_Khangser_Rinpoche reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tseung Kwan O (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's possibly far too soon for this user to be reviewing AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

RE: Pauline Kim draft
I wasn't sure if I should move it to mainspace yet or not. Plus I wanted to work it more on my sandbox draft then publish it? I am new to wikipedia...also not sure if this is the right way to communicate with othe wikipedia editors...

thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpark2016 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * replied on your talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

RE: Draft:Alex P Thorn


Hi DGG, i got the original code sent to me, so that is good. Listen I think you may have deleted my Article too soon, so now i want to discuss with you to restore the article to draft or user space so i can continue to work on it.

my process is simple, i first write out the entire Article on the first pass (which by itself may take a few days or a week and normally is very messy) after i have the first pass done i then do numerous proof reading passes until the article is perfect, then i invite others to review it and suggest edits once that is done and everyone agrees it is good then i add the citations and references. so you deleted it on the first pass, it is going to be a long Article, and it was not written flowery, it is just a fact that Alex Thorn really did do all this and no matter how dry i try to write it he will still show great achievements, but rest assured that i created the page in draft and noted in capital letter on the page it self that it was a work in progress and i was nowhere near ready to submit it for final review.

So having said that can you restore it in draft or usersapce so i can have the benefits of the wikipedia formating and citations & reference insertion function available once i complete the text edits and allow others to review it as well thanks Ronfleishman (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)190.219.146.35 (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, unless there is something very substantial that you have not yet covered, I see no real possibility of an article. Everything in his life up to the 1988 Grand Nationals is irrelevant to an encyclopedia, and I cannot see any information about a motorcycle race with that name in WP or even Google, tho I can find that name for a BMX bicycle race. The material in his early business activities is  minor, as is the lawsuit. As  mentioned, the claims to being the inventor of the fundamental server=side software used in every Microsoft computer game is an extraordinary claim that will need extraordinary references. The subsequent busines sactivities do not seem significant either, judging by the names of the companies.
 * I'm also a little puzzled by your references to your usual process, because this is the only article you seem to have written. Were you ever here under another username?  DGG ( talk ) 10:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Barbera Coffee Company
You salted the talk page but not the article page? Regards, for (talk)  06:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for notifying me. I'll fix it.  DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing. for (talk)  12:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy
Was just reading through this again and was wondering if your !vote was in the wrong section. If not just ignore me. AIR corn (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed it.  DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Inre Draft:Komal Jha. North America1000 07:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes,I'm going to try to do it tomorrow. I'm running about a week behind, various household and arb com matters.  DGG ( talk ) 10:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

RE: Draft:Alex P Thorn


Hi DGG, i got the original code sent to me, so that is good. Listen I think you may have deleted my Article too soon, so now i want to discuss with you to restore the article to draft or user space so i can continue to work on it.

my process is simple, i first write out the entire Article on the first pass (which by itself may take a few days or a week and normally is very messy) after i have the first pass done i then do numerous proof reading passes until the article is perfect, then i invite others to review it and suggest edits once that is done and everyone agrees it is good then i add the citations and references. so you deleted it on the first pass, it is going to be a long Article, and it was not written flowery, it is just a fact that Alex Thorn really did do all this and no matter how dry i try to write it he will still show great achievements, but rest assured that i created the page in draft and noted in capital letter on the page it self that it was a work in progress and i was nowhere near ready to submit it for final review.

So having said that can you restore it in draft or usersapce so i can have the benefits of the wikipedia formating and citations & reference insertion function available once i complete the text edits and allow others to review it as well thanks Ronfleishman (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)190.219.146.35 (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, unless there is something very substantial that you have not yet covered, I see no real possibility of an article. Everything in his life up to the 1988 Grand Nationals is irrelevant to an encyclopedia, and I cannot see any information about a motorcycle race with that name in WP or even Google, tho I can find that name for a BMX bicycle race. The material in his early business activities is  minor, as is the lawsuit. As  mentioned, the claims to being the inventor of the fundamental server=side software used in every Microsoft computer game is an extraordinary claim that will need extraordinary references. The subsequent busines sactivities do not seem significant either, judging by the names of the companies.
 * I'm also a little puzzled by your references to your usual process, because this is the only article you seem to have written. Were you ever here under another username?  DGG ( talk ) 10:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Barbera Coffee Company
You salted the talk page but not the article page? Regards, for (talk)  06:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for notifying me. I'll fix it.  DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing. for (talk)  12:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for Harriet Dinerstein rescue
I'd just gotten four articles from the Women in Red project that Fouette worked on undeleted so I could look at them, when wham, speedied again. Thanks for the rescue. Is there some understanding that everything a sock does, no matter if good or bad, must immediately be erased? StarryGrandma (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It can be immediately deleted, but it does not have to be if some ed. in good standing will take responsibility for it. And certainly nobody may replace the speedy tag after its been declined.  DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Gurevich
Hi DGG, this is a bio that you moved to main space and did some major cleanup on a few years ago. I've tagged it for sources and apparent COI, and wanted to check in with you before I go much further, removing unreferenced personal history and non notable resume-style content. Any thoughts or suggestions you have will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * His work is in two major museums, so he's unquestionably notable. As for the content, there's a problem with lists of exhibitions: they do add to a person's significance, thou they rarely are enough for notability themselves. Most contemporary artists' bios here have long lists of them. It would be very appropriate to reduce them to the major ones, but this takes an expert in the field. I am not one. Content of an article does not have to be notable: only sourced and relevant and proportional to importance. The routine facts of someone's life: where they were born, went to school, the jobs the held, and the like can be sourced from their own published information, and it is highly likely that some of the work cited here does contain this, some are on line, so it should be easy to do this.  This material here seems routine and straightforward--when such a section contain puffery and over-personal trivia, then I remove them.   The easiest first step to improve the article would be to remove the duplication between the bibliography and the references.  DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't speaking to notability. But I do think the balance of one-man shows and selected group exhibitions aren't notable, and most of them appear to refer to non notable commercial venues rather than museums; this is, to some extent, my bailiwick, though the specific venues are, in this case, literally foreign to me. I should think a good rule of thumb is whether the exhibition sites are themselves notable, as museums almost always are by definition, but commercial galleries are often not. Insofar as this is the case with many artists' bios, a lot of trimming is generally in order. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you know enough to select the right ones, please do. I'm grateful for the assistance.  DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DGG. My heart isn't in it right now; lots of real-life difficulties at the moment. But when I do get to it, please feel free to take a look and question any deletions that appear overzealous to you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did some paring, and was ready, not for the first time, to bestow a COI warning, but decided it would be gratuitous unless the editor re-posts what I've deleted. What's notable here was the persistent history of rejection when the article was submitted, and your willingness to look at it with a fresh eye. My compliments. 2601:188:1:AEA0:ECEB:94A0:1C5E:98BC (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Logista
Hello, I have tried to create the "Logista" page, a company that is part of the Imperial Tobacco group (now Imperial Brands) and that is listed on the Madrid stock exchange. I had a better look to the Wikipedia rules and I think I have understood why my article was deleted. Could you please remove the deletion and allow me to modify it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88Rorschach (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will get bavk to you tomorrow on this.
 * , do you have good references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements ? If you do, I'll move the article into Draft space so you can add them. .  DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , DGG hello, yes I do have good references from third-party independent reliable sources. Thank you for moving it into Draft space again.

Sorry DGG, I do not see the draft. Where is it? Thank you for your help.

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)
 * Very much appreciated, i will take on board your comments and work on these articles. PurpleSpiderSpider (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

MarketResearch.com
Actually, there was an AfD, although it resulted in a speedy. Adam9007 (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion
There is a topic in which you were involved being discussed at WP:ANI. The topic is concern over Adam9007's removal of speedy deletion templates. You are welcome to join the discussion here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oil Nut Bay )and Notability in General)
Posted in 1 edit, this article is blatantly obviously created as a comissioned work and authored by someone with a perfect in-depth knowledge of article creation. I don't know what to do about it - f indeed anything can be done, but it's the kind of article that makes me want to give up volunteering my time and intelligence for Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not helpless. I just listed it for G11.     DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just declined, so I listed it at AfD. If it does stay in, maybe we are helpless under current rules for what canbe investigated regarding COI.  DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I declined the speedy; It may well be a paid editor, but the article isn't unduly spammy, "editor is suspiciously familiar with Wikipedia" isn't a deletion criterion much as some would like it to be, and the notability standards for hotels & resorts on Wikipedia are historically extremely low. I find it hard to imagine any reason anyone would want to pay an editor to create this; I would hope that people looking to buy multi-million dollar houses on private islands aren't basing their decisions on Wikipedia. &#8209; Iridescent 09:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing is a matter of judgment (which i swhy I think we might indeed need a way of investigating) I do agree with you about our standards for hotels, which except for the most famous, seem entirely inconsistent.   DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You can hope,, but I did not join Wikipediand spend literally thousands of hours on it to rub shoulders with this kind of obvious spam. We need to establish a clear policy to condemn this sort of thing, otherwise it will be the 'but other stiff like it exists' defense. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As you may remember from my getting my fingers burned last time I tried to clean up resortspam (I was accused of "being on a deletion spree" for daring to suggest this might not be notable, and some guy called DGG declined my deletion request for this piece of obvious spam) I have no love for substubs about resorts, but this is a very poor one to choose as a test case. Virgin Gorda only has a population of about 4000, so the construction of this resort is almost certainly the island's largest employer, and once it opens it will probably be the largest populated settlement on the island, since each of those 88 houses and all the shops are also going to require a support staff and if the resort is only accessible by helicopter or ship they're presumably all going to be living in barracks onsite. Thus, either the scheme will succeed and the article will need to be re-created as an article on a significant population centre, or it will fail and undoubtedly be notable as a high-profile ghost town and spectacular bankruptcy. The existing stub isn't unduly spammy and doesn't have any element of "we're great"; if we're going to make "creator has a potential conflict of interest" into a deletion criterion, we'd be deleting half of Wikipedia. &#8209; Iridescent 10:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That was in 2010. My attitude has changed with the growth of paid editing. I'm willing to sacrifice complete coverage to prevent it, because it's a danger to the very purpose of writing a NPOV encyclopedia, and a great discouragement to the volunteers we need to be attracting to survive at all. I don't think WP or any community project can really have static rules. For example, the need for accuracy is much higher now that journalists and other people whom we once relied on now use us as a resource.   DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting DGG that I was paid to start those London hotel stubs? The question is, is are there enough sources to validate having those articles. And in most cases, actually, yes, they could be expanded into half decent entries. They should have been start as proper articles initially, I agree, but I think hotels typically get a hard time on wikipedia. There's a huge number of missing notable ones. Me personally, I prefer historic architecturally notable luxury hotels, not generic branches of popular chains, but at the time I felt like I was doing something useful to filling in a gaping hole in wiki's coverage of London hotels, so make no excuses for acting in good faith in starting them. Can San Domenico House be expanded into a better article? Chances are, yes, it could quite easily be expanded into something half credible. So why doesn't anybody do it? By all means, take a load of them to AFD and see how they fare. A quick look in google books tells me that San Domenico House is likely notable.♦  Dr. Blofeld  19:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I think you realize, the editor who thought it was spam was someone else. What I think is spam, and therefore suggested deletion, is Oil Nut Bay, which was written by a spa. I was explaining why in the past I might not have even bothered deleting such articles. I agree with you,,  that most luxury hotels are probably notable. But many of the current articles being written on such subjects are almost certainly paid editing. Opinion varies on whether we should fix them or delete them, and my attitude has switched to the second solution, for the same reason we usually delete articles by banned editors--as the only practical  way to discourage the practice.
 * More generally, I've said many times that to try to distinguish by guessing from the nature of the article and the edit history is very rough work, and would be done much more precisely if we were able to know is suspicious instances who the editor actually is. How this can be done without compromising some of our basic principles is a very difficult question.  DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem we have is that companies and hotels/resort owners don't "own" articles on their subjects. Obviously we need stronger protection against shoddy COI editing and promotional spam as an encyclopedia, but if some PR operative of a firm is trying to get their mits on an article, or start it, I just disagree with the principle that just because the firm and PR are interested in having an article on their subject we must delete or block it at all costs to completely stamp out paid editing and people using wikipedia for commercial gain . There are really a lot of notable firms which are started by PR operatives or CEOs themselves which if started by any neutral editor would never get deleted or be seen as a problem. And the issue is that thse people don't own the articles. Anybody can blast a puff piece written by one of them to smithereens and write it neutrally from scratch and put it on a watchlist. Over time wikipedia is going to increasingly attract the promotional types who just don't get what wikipedia is about. So while I respect your traditionalist view of what an encyclopedia should contain, I don't agree that we should block all article subjects which might have self-interest from companies. What matters is that the article subjects are notable and neutral/reliable. If articles meets GNG and can be written neutrally and sources to reliable publications we should keep them and nurture them. What we really need is a (paid) department of full-time foundation employees here whose job it is to parole company articles, block out the spam from PR operatives and paid editors and edit them neutrally, retaining the articles for the good of knowledge, not because some CEO wants it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Opinion, obviously, varies. My own view is that the proportion of decent articles from such sources is so extremely low, that on balance we would improve WP by eliminating altogether if we could find an effective way to do so. But as we have not yet found a way, we have to remove on other grounds. Personally, I do make exceptions if the subject is highly notable and the article is truly satisfactory (which happens one time in a thousand) or the subject is highly notable a& it can be quickly fixed and someone is interested in doing so (one in a hundred)  can be quickly fixed & someone is interested in doing it, but otherwise I will use whatever deletion process fits the circumstances. Additionally there is a difference between declared and undeclared COI. Undeclared COI, especially if paid editing, is a violation of the TOU, and according to WMF policy we are all responsible for enforcing it. We  do not yet have this as a speedy criterion, possibly because of the difficulty in determining just who is violating it under existing practice. As any reason that has consensus is valid at AfD, and we need just convincing evidence not actual certainty, I would be considering using it as a reason; I know others have, and  as a closing admin to accept a consensus to do so.  As a first step, I would support retroactive deletion of articles started by blocked coi editors if G4 would be otherwise applicable except they had not yet been blocked.  5 or 6  Years ago I would have supported your view on this, but I think that  the proportion of commercial promotionalism  was not yet so high, and we had not yet realized the danger. (The key promotionalism  problem then was ideological promotionalism)
 * I am, however, not someone who has a traditionalist view of the encyclopedia. I am very willing to find whatever reason we can to reasonably extend the boundaries for what we cover, to the extent we can write verifiable and useful articles. I am much more willing to do this in areas whichcan be relatively free from promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * DGG, where are you getting Undeclared COI, especially if paid editing, is a violation of the TOU, and according to WMF policy we are all responsible for enforcing it from? This is not and never has been the case, and it's worrying to see that a sitting Arbcom member appears to think that it is. While undisclosed paid editing is forbidden, neither Wikipedia nor the WMF has ever had a policy against editing with a conflict of interest, and whenever such a thing has been proposed it's been shot down; even the relatively weak guidance at WP:Conflict of interest isn't and never has been Wikipedia policy. (WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor, on the other hand, is a formal Wikipedia policy, which you appear to be wilfully disregarding.) The exact wording of the relevant part of the TOU is These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation., and is explicitly and carefully worded to only relate to people being specifically paid to edit Wikipedia.
 * In the unlikely event that we did bring in a ban on all undeclared COI editing, Wikipedia would disintegrate into open chaos, given that it would mean bulk deletion of entire sections of the project. (As concrete examples, any article on an educational institution will have been written at least in part by attendees and alumni of that institution; virtually every article on an extant military unit has almost certainly been written at least in part by serving members of that unit; any article on a company has probably been edited at least in part by employees and customers of that company, since in most cases they're the only ones with enough on an interest to do the necessary research.) Much as Jimbo may like it to be otherwise, there is no obligation for employees of the article subject to disclose their affiliations unless they're editing Wikipedia as part of their job, and unless a paid editor admits to it or you can find a paper trail on Elance for the commission being offered and accepted, it's virtually impossible to prove that someone is writing in work time, rather than just writing about their place of work. &#8209; Iridescent 14:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From |WMF Wiki: (Overview, paragraph 2:
 * The community – the network of users who are constantly building and using the various sites or Projects – are the principal means through which the goals of the mission are achieved. The community contributes to and helps govern our sites. The community undertakes the critical function of creating and enforcing policies for the specific Project editions...
 * I interpret this as saying that enforcement responsibility here is the responsibility of enWP, and that out policies must be compatible with the TOU. With respect to paid editing, there's also a statement that  and one WP's policies may vary if the variation is approved: we have not (or at least not yet) chosen to do so. Therefore, our Deletion Policy must be interpreted to include at least the restrictions made by the TOU.
 * The problem, as you correctly state, is how we are to do this. In the absence of specific targeted rules, we do this by enforcing the existing policies and guidelines in such a way as to produce the necessary result. Fortunately, our existing rules are so close to the TOU that this does not usually have to be stated explicitly in a deletion discussion; in those cases where they are inadequate, either we have to guess or we can take no action.  In my opinion, since any valid reason is cause for deletion, and NOT ADVOCACY is basic policy, we should at least delete such articles if we reasonably think they have been contributed in violation of the TOU, unless we choose to make an exception, though I would much prefer if there were a more precise method.    I continue to think  that the community would do well to have some more effective way of directly enforcing them which is compatible with outing policy, and various suggestions have been made. I would support most of them.
 * As for the college and university articles, some have been written by attendees and alumni--a sort of COI that is not paid editing and which we could deal without most of the university articles have been written by university PR staff in the same style they use for their page in a college guide,  and they need to be rewritten.  There are indeed other such examples. But since we can not trust any paid editing to be NPOV, you seem to be  suggesting we maintain biased articles to maintain our size.    DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As for the college and university articles, some have been written by attendees and alumni--a sort of COI that is not paid editing and which we could deal without most of the university articles have been written by university PR staff in the same style they use for their page in a college guide,  and they need to be rewritten.  There are indeed other such examples. But since we can not trust any paid editing to be NPOV, you seem to be  suggesting we maintain biased articles to maintain our size.    DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

S4 League declined
Hello as you might guess i disagree with the notion that it lacks references of covorage.Not only has it been covered by multiple high profile reviewers but it also has been covered by old traditional media like IGN.Not only that but i have added during submissions additional points to try and satisfy the random reviewers who will asses the article so by no means can adding new information and resubmitting the article as told by the tag is in violation.Simonmana (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article on it was deleted at two successive AfDs, most recently in 2015. The draft has been declined by 6 different reviewers, all within the past month--you have been submitting it at least once a week without significant  improvements. I've listed it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:S4 League  .  DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Paul H. Irving
I wonder if you could examine this as I found it today but it still seems questionable, WorldCat only listed 600 listings while GoogleScholar never said anything. I'm not sure if the apparent "institute chair and distinguished scholar" is enough. SwisterTwister  talk  20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * the first thing to check for something like this, which completely ignores the WP format of writing an article, is copyvio. I listed it for G12, as it's a word for word copy of its first reference, just as I would have expected.  He might be borderline  notable, if anyone cared to actually write an article.  DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Any chance another editor will review Credible AfC?
Noticed some issues you raised with an editor who had been rushing through AfCs User_talk:Tseung_Kwan_O

Was wondering if another editor will be able to take a look at Credible AfC? Draft:Credible

If you take a look at the talk page, you'll see there's been a sincere attempt to address issues raised by other editors at Draft_talk:Credible

Thanks! 162.245.21.61 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Still too promotional . I left some suggestions in my comment.  DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ross Honeywill
It might be worth having another look at speeding Ross Honeywill. I have started a cleanup and have removed chunks ax copied straight from or close paraphrases of copyright material. Given the combination of promotion and copyright violation it may be best to apply TNT. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Checking library holdings, he is less notable than I though. I suggest AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Karam ud Din
Greetings. I see that you deleted this AfD with the summary "clear consensus", but the AfD tag remains on the article itself. Having not seen the AfD (I found this because I track User:Cyberbot I/AfD report‎) and not being an admin, I have no way of knowing if the deletion was in error, or if it was somehow correct but inadequately explained and with insufficient followup. Either way, it appears some cleanup is needed. Thank you for your time. -- Finngall  talk  16:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * my error. I somehow managed to delete the AfD discusion rather than the article. I've fixed it.  DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinion needed on Josh Roush
Hi DGG. Could you and perhaps take a look at the AfD for this article? It's had to be re-listed because both keep !votes are from paid editors, but even the re-listing time is about to expire. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * a tricky situation, because the editors declared &we surely do not want to discourage this, but he is just not yet notable.I commented as carefully as I could about the situation.  DGG ( talk ) 10:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ullens Center for Contemporary Art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liu Wei. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Afc for Universal Community Calendar
Hi DGG, we have submitted a page for review and it was picked up by User:Tseung_Kwan_O, who I see you have recently given words of advice regarding some deficiencies in his reviewing. It seems that Tseng is no longer responding to new sections on his Talk page and our Afc seems to be in some kind of stasis. Is it possible for you or another Admin reviewer to take a look at our Afc to see if our article can be approved or how it can be improved so that it can be.

best regards Prajna.pranab (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * He has since been told to stop reviewing, and has apparently stopped. Unfortunately the many articles he has reviewed will still have to be re-reviewed. I have started doing this; I hope some people are helping me, because otherwise this will take me several weeks at least to redo the work, as i tis more likely to can take an hour or half-hour for each article, not the one to two minutes he typically gave them.
 * But let me advise you a little now: First, the extensive astrological and related material in section 6 is probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia --certainly not in the detail you gave it--try to reduce to a table of year equivalents. Second, there needs to be an introductory section with specific inline references) explaining how the calendar developed,  just who developed it, and for what purpose. When ready resubmit, and if you tell me, I will look at it.  DGG ( talk ) 11:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG Thanks for the quick and most helpful reply. We will set to work making those changes. Perhaps it would be better to move section 6 to its own page. Do you have any thoughts on that? We can certainly add information about the development of the calendar etc. Prajna.pranab (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that much of the material in section 6 is unlikely to be ever acceptable into WP as excessive detail for something that is still a proposal, and because the basic information about the meaning of the astrology and so on is already in WP. Links to existing articles are enough. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your feedback on my paid work, I've been trying my best to walk the tight rope of neutrality and making the client happy. I'm proud of my non-paid work and I want to ensure that the paid work reflects the same pride and adherence to guidelines. There are quite a few who've balked at the fact that I always reveal my paid status, I've been asked to vote "keep" on like 10-15 AFDs so far and I always tell them that it'd be a waste of money for me to state "Keep - And I was paid to vote". If the client wants to pursue the Born Warriors article in the future I would probably suggest a total rewrite. So thank you I appreciate the feedback.  MPJ  -DK 12:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Dick Carlson copied from Draft:Dick Carlson
You've made some efforts to rescue Draft:Dick Carlson. I don't know if you noticed that there's already an article Dick Carlson on the subject. My first instinct was to MfD the draft as a content fork, but on close inspection the article was a cut and paste move from this version of the draft, with some new content added (guess they got tired of AfC). So I'm thinking a history merge is required, but with it being cross-namespace and with your parallel development of the draft after it was copied, I'm a bit lost as to what to ask for, even after studying WP:COPYWITHIN, WP:ADMINGUIDE/CP, and WP:SPLICE. Would you put in motion whatever needs to be done? I'll watch and learn. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are quite right the procedures for this are unclear. Let me cover all the possible cases. If the Draft represents the original state of the article, because the articles was either moved to mainspace without going through the procedure, or the procedure was done manually but incompletely, then all that's needed is to do what the procedure should have done, and redirect the draft to the article talk page.If the new Draft is added or copied after the article is accepted & contains no new material, then its just a speedy G6 aas duplicate; if it does contain new material then a history merge is the technically correct option, but I normally try to avoid it by accepting the draft under a variant name, and doing an ordinary merge--I think the redirect provides adequately for the attribution, tho its a little IAR. In this case where the original draft was left behind, and modified, but the  modification is just a cut, I think a redirect would normally do it.
 * But the situation here is  different, because the Draft version is superior to the even more promotional  and  puffy    mainspace article. The simplest thing to do will be to redirect, and make my changes on the mainspace article, so I'll do this.  DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your feedback on my paid work, I've been trying my best to walk the tight rope of neutrality and making the client happy. I'm proud of my non-paid work and I want to ensure that the paid work reflects the same pride and adherence to guidelines. There are quite a few who've balked at the fact that I always reveal my paid status, I've been asked to vote "keep" on like 10-15 AFDs so far and I always tell them that it'd be a waste of money for me to state "Keep - And I was paid to vote". If the client wants to pursue the Born Warriors article in the future I would probably suggest a total rewrite. So thank you I appreciate the feedback.  MPJ  -DK 12:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Dick Carlson copied from Draft:Dick Carlson
You've made some efforts to rescue Draft:Dick Carlson. I don't know if you noticed that there's already an article Dick Carlson on the subject. My first instinct was to MfD the draft as a content fork, but on close inspection the article was a cut and paste move from this version of the draft, with some new content added (guess they got tired of AfC). So I'm thinking a history merge is required, but with it being cross-namespace and with your parallel development of the draft after it was copied, I'm a bit lost as to what to ask for, even after studying WP:COPYWITHIN, WP:ADMINGUIDE/CP, and WP:SPLICE. Would you put in motion whatever needs to be done? I'll watch and learn. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are quite right the procedures for this are unclear. Let me cover all the possible cases. If the Draft represents the original state of the article, because the articles was either moved to mainspace without going through the procedure, or the procedure was done manually but incompletely, then all that's needed is to do what the procedure should have done, and redirect the draft to the article talk page.If the new Draft is added or copied after the article is accepted & contains no new material, then its just a speedy G6 aas duplicate; if it does contain new material then a history merge is the technically correct option, but I normally try to avoid it by accepting the draft under a variant name, and doing an ordinary merge--I think the redirect provides adequately for the attribution, tho its a little IAR. In this case where the original draft was left behind, and modified, but the  modification is just a cut, I think a redirect would normally do it.
 * But the situation here is  different, because the Draft version is superior to the even more promotional  and  puffy    mainspace article. The simplest thing to do will be to redirect, and make my changes on the mainspace article, so I'll do this.  DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

TEAMS Design
When I first started working on this article, I got some tips from other Wiki eidtors. They told me that as long as I documented an outside source for my claims, that it was then not advertising. As I have done that, I am not clear as junior editor, as to what exactly you are objecting to. Any tips are appreciated. I don't mid re-writing the whole darned article if I have to. Minervaone (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I dealt with some of this in my edit to condense the appearance of the awards list by combining different products from the same company receiving the same award the same year. But there's more, which has been remarked on by other editors also.  Some of the awards listed have different categories,represing 1st, 2nd, 3rd place. It is our usual practice that only the first place counts. Most of the awards listed are awards given to several hundred products a year, and cannot really be considered major, at least in the usual sense.  DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's helpful. I'll work on that over time. Thanks!173.9.231.53 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ivana Raymonda van der Veen AfD
Hi DGG,

I understand your concerns. I regret the way I reacted to one of Ivana's fans in that AfD, and I even removed the controversial parts per the BLP concerns, but an administrator reverted my edit, saying that others might find those parts relevant. I was upset about the emotional distress tactic, which I have heard from Ivana in the past, but I should have known better, and I won't make that sort of mistake again. I expected a fan to show up, but not with that strategy. I had never done anything remotely similar before, and as I said, I won't do it again. Thanks for the reminder. Dontreader (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. And to avoid confusion, the other admin was right, it's generally better to remove them from view after the discussion unless its truly a matter of privacy. I will take care of doing that.  DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion without an outcome; I think you'll need to wait ~24 hours before blanking (an outcome I endorse). Best, Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Brian Timpone
Hi - I saw that this article is gone, and you replaced it with a redirect to LocalLabs. Is all of the history permanently gone? Some of the historical pages had very useful information (e.g., described his entire fake byline scandal that Poynter school of journalism broke). So, rather than reading bits and pieces of the story from 15 different articles, it was all unified there in sequence. The latest revisions were badly written and solely negative, but is there no opportunity to change this? There is a lot of negative information about him in various reliable sources such as NPR. Positive info is only really in his own publications on his own sites. Also, I noticed someone comment that he's a "local business man" (thus insignificant for wikipedia) but Blockshopper operates in over 15+ cities nationwide. Local Labs (his company) is used in a few different states' newspapers. The (main) significant thing about him is that he is the first person to ever try outsourcing the writing of local news articles to the Philippians, and he's doing it in many markets. The other significant thing about him was actually the inspiration for the CBS Show "Person of Interest," Episode "Nothing to Hide." Timpone started a business (Blockshopper) to collect personal info about people, posts it online, and refuses to let people opt out / take their home address off.

If the article cannot be accessed by regular users of wikipedia, is there a way I can just see a read-only copy of the history to copy it? I spent 8-10 hours writing an older version (the one about the Poynter / fake byline scandal - since I was there at the time) and that was completely wiped out. I didn't bother contributing to the new one. It is pointless to write anything negative about someone who has an army of 1000 people in the Philippians, constantly online. I won't upload it back here. It's for journalism students (an older version - not the latest one that was a mess that you ended up deleting anyway) ApolloLee (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * i will take another look, but it will take a few days till I get to it .  DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ivana Raymonda van der Veen (2nd nomination)
I saw your comment about the tone. I'd already had words with Dontreader about getting too involved and had already resolved to blank the discussion once it concluded. Nthep (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

AfC for Universal Community Calendar
Hi DGG, we have added a background section to the Draft:Universal_Community_Calendar and edited down Section 6, as you suggested. Would you have time to check it before we resubmit?

kind regards Prajna.pranab (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the article, I am not going to accept it. The parts of the section you added, about how someone happened to think of it, is not really appropriate, but the section as a whole indicates to be that it is an individual person's proposal, that had got no significant discussion by anyone not directly associated with it. I don't think it has a chance at surviving in main space, and that's the criterion/.   DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for reviewing, DGG. This has all taught me rather a lot about Wikipedia behind-the-scenes. I had previously been under the impression that the Wikipedia project was a comprehensive reference for all kinds of things but am now beginning to realise that, apart from the many legacy pages that were created when adding new articles was fairly free-for-all, Wikipedia is actually rather conservative in what knowledge will be included. It is almost as if the notability and referencing criteria are designed to exclude any knowledge that sits outside the Establishment line; much as has happened with universities and mainstream media. Unless my co-editor objects I think we are better off spending our time and energy on a wiki of our own on the subject, which can be as detailed as we like; a far better resource for those who are interested in the subject than, it appears, Wikipedia would allow. Yes the calendar is a proposal from an individual; what an extraordinary idea to see that as a deficiency since there are few ideas that originate otherwise. It has not been widely discussed in academic circles or in the press but it has been well discussed amongst those who are interested in it and the communities that have taken it on; since those communities have been alternative there is little reason that academia or the press would take an interest. We had thought that a comprehensive, well-researched and referenced Wikipedia article would be a convenient and reliable reference for those with an interest in the calendar. Thanks, I now know more about what Wikipedia isn't, though it disappoints me. Prajna.pranab (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The purpose of AfC is to avoid the situation where the contributor will submit an article which is reasonably certain to be deleted. In reviewing,the question is not whether the reviewer likes the article,or thinks it should be kept (or deleted)--it rather a procedure where the question is what is the reviewers judgment based on what normally happens at WP deletion discussions, whether the article is likely to be accepted by the community. On the basis of my experience for many years with many thousands of AfD discussions, I am making the judgement that there is no significant chance that the article would be accepted, and giving you the reason. Invariably, community judgment is that if something is discussed only within small circle, the subject is not yet ready for an encyclopedia article. Of course the people interested in it think it important, but we onl include articles which world thinks sufficiently important that the general reader will come to an encyclopedia expecting to find information on it.   DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that calendars were of interest to the general reader and if calendars in general are of interest then calendars in particular are also likely to be of interest. Indeed, Wikipedia seems to document a number of calendars, some of which are quite extraordinary or even whimsical. If I were looking at calendars in general then I would be disappointed to find that Wikipedia covered some calendars and excluded others. Prajna.pranab (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * NEW REPLY to DGG  DGG''' ( talk ). Hi DGG, this is Litmus, I created the UCC, in a similar way that the advisor to Pope Gregory created the Gregorian calendar. I did not "happen to think of it" as you say, it was the result of a lot of study and consideration of the topic of calendars and how our time and behaviour are controlled by them rather than by natural cycles. I feel you were devious in asking for an additional section on the background to the calendar, giving the impression that that would help its submission, only to then reject it because of it! We were originally told by your colleague that it was not accepted because of its lack of independent 3rd party references, and you also cite this as a reason, its lack of being discussed in broader circles outside smaller interest groups. However this is not consistently shown or enforced by wikipedia as a reason for declining submissions across its platform. A quick review of the calendars page shows a number of calendars which have somehow been approved which clearly show the need for additional citations and references at the top of their pages. Do you have a view on this? And lastly it would be very helpful if you could suggest what would be considered a valid reference for 'notability'. Would some kind of feature in calendar related media suffice? Or would it need to be in general media? I only ask as some of the accepted calendars appear to have been featured largely in 'pet' media only, for example the science geek 'tranquillity' calendar in Omni. Thanks, I look forward to your reply. (Sorry for this non standard method of replying but I didn't know how to do it any other way or "sign it", cheers)

'''

Discussion at Articles for deletion/New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association (3rd nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/New Zealand Veterinary Nursing Association (3rd nomination). A user has posted a question for you there. North America1000 21:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

About the warning
Hi DGG,

I take your warning very seriously. I think I made very fair edits just now on Ivana's article, but I won't make any more. Please look carefully at what I did and what I wrote on the talk page of that article. I won't engage with Rebbing again either. However, that article should have been deleted. The closing Administrator said it could be nominated again in a couple of months. If you could somehow make that happen I would appreciate it, and I would agree not to participate in that future AfD if Rebbing also agrees not to do so. I'm very upset with her for using those tactics, and I don't want her to get away with it, regardless of how inappropriate my behavior was when I disparaged the subject while replying to her fan. It was wrong but I was at least being honest. However, her Keep vote while acknowledging that the subject didn't pass GNG or BAND is simply unacceptable, and there has to be some sort of fairness and justice on Wikipedia. I hope you understand. Dontreader (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked. Please stop being concerned about the article altogether, regardless of what anyone else may say anywhere. You should not be the one to afd it again. If it's that clear she isn't notable, someone else will do it and you should stay out of the discussion; it's not my field, so I'm not going to judge it. I would also strongly advise you to archive the entire matter from your user talk as soon as possible: the longer it stays visible, the worse it will be.     DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at your reply in a moment. I was writing while you were writing. DGG, I hope you have noticed that the contributor that jumped in at the last moment to block consensus in that AfD, copying Rebbing's rationale, has left a COI warning on my page and has reverted my edits on Ivana's page. That is totally out of line. To me, that editor is nothing more than Rebbing's sidekick, and has no right to post anything of that sort on my page because she is an involved editor in this dispute. And I was not gutting the article, as the editor claims. Please take a look. I said to you that I would not respond to Rebbing, but then her sidekick tries to bait me. Please take action. Even if I'm wrong about the collusion theory, this is plain wrong. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What you have written above is an example of your continuing the dispute. I assure you I am dealing quietly & appropriately with other people involved. I am blocking you for 48 hours to prevent this from continuing.  DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

About WinGPG deletion
Hi DGG, Can you please explain how the descriptive article about free utility could be taken as advertising? Here it is: WinGPG is a free encryption tool based on GnuPG public-key cryptography with minimalistic GUI. It uses the cryptography from the official site GnuPG as a base. Supported operations: It also performs managing password protected keys, default keys and files keys and files. Main operational features:
 * Encryption/Decryption (including automatic zipping at encryption time)
 * Signature/Verification
 * Key management (create, import, export, revoke)
 * WinNT Explorer support via context menus
 * Global shortcuts working from the active explorer window or clipboard
 * Clipboard support for both texts and files

Can you tell me please what exactly in this text is more advertising than in this article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpg4win Thank you in advance Sc.pashkevich.artem (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * what would you say differently on a web page? These are almost all of them perfectly routine features.   My suggestion is to write it in Draft, and make sure to include references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Substantial reviews count, minor ones do not. We are not particularly consistent in our decisions in this field.    DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Prolific Sock farm products
Hi DGG. FYI, see Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The farm was just discovered today. I've made a list of all the "articles" they've created and posted them at COIN, as I don't have time to go through them myself. Pinging also and. How utterly demoralising, sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see it's also being discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (re banning the farm and nuking the products). Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * deletions are underway; but expect to find more of them as we check further.
 * but this should not surprise you--1/as we improve WP, it increases in importance and people want their professional and business activities to be in it.  2/most of the are not suitable for articles without compromising nOT DIRECTORY and NPOV 3/most people and businesses cannot write their own well enough to get them kept 4/quite a few people think they have the skills to do such articles and offer these services 5/we cannot accurately detect paid contributions with compromising Privacy.
 * What it comes down to is a choice between NPOV and Privacy, and almost everyone at WP values Privacy higher. There is no solution if this remains the case.  DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG. I wasn't surprised at all, just fed up. But on the bright side, there seems to be a growing consensus for nuking the articles in situations like this rather than wasting everyone's time with AfDs. Of course, most of these people don't get caught red-handed socking as this farm did. I suppose one small step people can take is to check obvious paid articles and look at the contributions of the creator and those who have edited the same articles or supplied images. See, for example User talk:Seostrategists and User talk:Kkc knight, who uploaded the image at Josh Roush and voted "Keep" in the AfD and who created London & Country Mortgages (subsequently taken over by Seostrategists), although I doubt if there's enough to bring an SPI. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Bring one and see. I think it's enough. Maybe this is a good time for me to finally try using checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

note from maybe
Please read the note I left for you here DGG. Sorry for any inconvenience to you.

It can be found one directory over at DGG/LG page I think. I did not mean to I post on that page there.Maybeparaphrased (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, I too think it is necessary to follow up appropriately. I've done it. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

CENGN
Hi There DGG! My article, CENGN, was recently deleted due to unambiguous advertising or promotion. <05:16, 21 July 2016 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page CENGN (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)> Can I rectify this for the article? I am open to any changes to make it Wikipedia worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.113.1 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * explanation tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Emergency checkuser request
I need you to do an emergency check user check on user:THE LORD OF FFF UCKS, and user:THE LORD OF FF UCKS. Look for any sleepers and block the IP address. 2602:306:3357:BA0:E42C:B867:9CD8:C963 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have checkuser rights, so I can see and understand checkuser results when they come up at arb com, but I do not consider myself sufficiently skilled to use it without doing more harm than good.  DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have sent you a request by email--some of the details are better not repeated more than necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Speedy Deletion
Wikipedia: Why does Wikipedia have the "speedy deletion" process ? Sorry, this page was recently deleted (within the last 24 hours). The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

03:09, 22 July 2016 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Sabareesh Prabhaker (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.179.251 (talk)
 * we do this according to the policies WP:NOTDIRECTORY and NOTADVOCACY in order to remove promotionalism  and advertising. WP is the place for neither, and thepresenve of itharms the reliability of the encyclopedia. Examples from the article : "He's an excellent performing artist" "The music world noticed the promising youngster",  "his ultimate experiences" ,"one ofthe  rare south Indians who... "
 * If you want to try again, read out policies on WP:Conflict of Interest and write the article in draft space, making sure you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements or the sort of promotional squibs that are common in some newspapers.  DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool.  DGG ( talk )

Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
There's no way this is a case of mistaken good-faith editing - aside from the blatant disregard of policy, there's too many things that don't make sense about what's going on here, and I think the editor is purposely not disclosing a connection that he's absolutely got to have to get what he got. I know you have a ton of things to deal with, but could you look this over and see if we should try to pursue some sort of sanction? MSJapan (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What he says is perhaps unlikely, but not impossible. It's not absurd that someone might ask the company for technical help of this sort. Whether it's a COI depends on how he uses it. I think he's declared sufficiently. My advice is just to concentrate on the article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Draft:Walter Noetico page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=731135048 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F731135048%7CDraft:Walter Noetico%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please comment on Talk:Truck
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Truck. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Vijyant Thapar
Hi DGG. I see that you closed Articles for deletion/Vijayant Thapar. As an admin, would you be able to check the content of the deleted article and see if the newly created Vijyant Thapar is significantly different? One new version of the article has already been deleted as a copyright violation, but this new stub appears not to be, and is sourced. I just wondered whether the sources provided make the previous deletion rationale redundant, or whether this should be deleted as the recreation of a previously deleted article? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the article creator,, has now requested speedy deletion having discovered the previous deletion discussion. That might not be necessary if you found sources demonstrating notability, Fitindia, but since I can't see the previously deleted article, I don't know what sources it was using. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Cordless Larry the page with the spelling difference is this Vijayant Thapar the the one i created was this   Vijyant Thapar thank you-FITINDIA&#160;(talk) 12:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise that, . My point is that a recreated article only needs to be deleted if the similarity with the previously deleted article is significant. If the previous article failed to demonstrate the subject's notability, but your version does, then it can be kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Hi Cordless Larry i had sourced the stub and had put a link to the Indian army website which mentions Vijyant Thapar but felt that i should request deletion as it was deleted AFD thank you - FITINDIA&#160;<b style="color:red">(talk)</b></i> 12:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Billingham Bags
Hi DGG.

Thanks for looking over the page again and giving it a chance. If there's anything else I can do to improve it please let me know and I'll try my best.

Nathenoo (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Appian Corporation
Your comment on rejecting the page for Appian Corporation:

"This continues to be advertising, trying to repeat the sometimes meaningless favorable notice it has gotten at various places without actually providing encyclopedic information. It contains to contain vague claims of excellence and reach, emphasizing the names of its customers as if this were proof of its notability.

The company may possibly -- just possibly -- be notable, but the approach taken here will not show it. This is written by an declared paid editor, and it shows the usual faults of this manner of writing. Almost nobody is able to write about their own organization in a way that follows WP:NPOV"

I would like to engage in a discussion with you on this rejection. Which notices do you feel like are "meaningless"?

What encyclopedic information is not provided? There are third party sources cited indicating that Appian is a software company with over $100 million in revenue and more than 500 employees. There is a description of the company's history pulled from recognizable sources, such as the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc. There is a description of the company's software (which is itself highly encyclopedic information) drawn from two third party sources: bpm.com, a neutral website covering the BPM industry, as well as PC Mag.

I recognize that the prior drafts contained some advertising-like material, but in back-and-forth with the previous reviewer(s), that material was specifically highlighted, removed and significant additional neutral descriptions were added.

You also mention WP:NPOV. As you likely well know, there are third parties out there who you can pay to create pages for you. Appian didn't do that - it acted honestly and put in a reference to the fact that the original writer (a lower level marketing person) was paid by the company. In response to two rejections, the article was significantly changed and now reads a very straightforward description of the company and its product. By taking the position that you do, you are encouraging companies to hide their identities or engage third parties to create articles for them. WP:COI is not a prohibition on creating or editing content.

If you question the neutrality of a statement, please provide comment and the draft can be revised. If there are the "usual faults of this manner of writing" please highlight them.

For reference, here are the wikipedia pages of other software companies in the Washington, DC area, which provided a model for Appian Corporation:

Applied Predictive Technologies Tenable Network Security Opower GridPoint Evolent Health Afiniti Canvas (company) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.124.250.3 (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There are several hundred thousand articles in WP that we need to either upgrade or  remove. The least we can do is not add to them. I'm listing at least one of the articles you mentioned for deletion; a good deal of promotionalism needs removal from several of the others.

You might want to
 * 1) look at every adjective in the article, because at least some of them are advertising claims
 * 2) Decrease the detail in the awards section -- and not list them in the lede also.
 * 3) not list the applications of specific customers: that sort of credential belongs on a web page or advertisement
 * 4) Look agains at the list of products
 * 5) remove the 3rd para of the lede--the founders hobbies are not encyclopedic content about the company   DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, these are useful suggestions. One thing that I think is difficult is the trade off between notability and advertisement. One might write something about a company that makes it seem notable (e.g., revenues over $100 million) that another might see as an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.124.250.3 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this discussion (as well as the discussions on other reviewers' talk pages) was copied to the talk page of the article. DGG, there is a response to your question and points there and on Bradv's talk page (copied). Happy for you to remove this from your talk page.WSCW (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please reconsider
In regards to Freakzoid (gamer) Deletion review/Log/2016 July 21, I am not requesting to overturn the AfD outcome, but to allow the subject a chance on main space or relisting. The subject is notable and I believe the version in my user space should passes WP:GNG policy. In terms of sources here are a few major mainstream publications which give the subject significant coverage far beyond what is required<ul><li> The article notes: Several hundred people in the crowd in Austin, Texas's Convention Center at the North American debut of the biggest esports tournament series in the world, DreamHack. Two Counter-Strike: Global Offensive teams are competing for a chance at glory. One, the current world champion, Luminosity Gaming. The other, Splyce, a mid-tier North American team with two stand-ins.

The pressure is on, and as the two teams play on Train, one of Counter-Strike's oldest maps, Luminosity Gaming is slaughtering Splyce. By halftime, the score is 14-1 in the Brazilian Gods' favor - you only need win 16 rounds to win. After the half, the game comes to a close at 16-5. Splyce got crushed.

But one of Splyce's stand-ins, former Cloud9 entry-fragger Ryan "fREAKAZOiD" Abadir, is just happy to be here. He's not competed in a tournament since the Major League Gaming Columbus major in March--leaving Cloud9 just after. But competing again, he says he's found a new hunger for the game he's been a pro in for seven years.

Power ranking the top 10 players at MSI (so far) There are no members of SKT in this MSI power ranking. We repeat: No members of SKT made it on this list. "Since I've been around for so long, everyone's kind of saying I'm washed up," fREAKAZOiD says with a smile. "But I feel like I have a new hunger for the game. Taking that time off, just not playing, I just feel like, this new hunger. I kind of feel like a new me is going to come. I don't really know how to explain it, but that's how I feel right now. I almost didn't want to come here, but coming has made me wanna play again at the highest possible level."

fREAKAZOiD isn't the only stand-in for the team. The other is popular Twitch streamer Jaryd "summit1g" Lazar. He's never played in a Counter-Strike: Global Offensive offline tournament, and he's currently the fourth biggest streamer on the Twitch platform. But despite having streaming as his income, fREAKAZOiD says he's confident that summit1g could make it as a competitive player.

"He takes it serious, he wants to win," fREAKAZOiD says when asked about his fellow stand-in. "I think people get kind of confused because he's a streamer, but he loves to compete, I can tell. You can see when he's playing and how he talks and like, he goes for it. I respect that a lot about him. He really does wanna play for a top team.". </li></ul> This is an ESPN source which give elite players in sports and esports coverage. This player is not run of the mill. Additional sources include The Daily Dot, theScore, and [https://esports.yahoo.com/freakazoid-removed-from-cloud9-173418809.html Yahoo! eSports]. I believe these sources should at least allow the article a relist. I hope you reconsider I fear that if this DRV fail this person will be denied an entry on Wikipedia despite passing the guidelines. Valoem  talk   contrib  23:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussions at some afds have indicated to me that it is possible that I may have some prejudice from lack of understanding   int the   field. It would be fairer to remove my !vote, and I did so.  DGG ( talk ) 11:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for your comment
Hi! I see that you commented at Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_153. You may be interested in commenting at this new Article for Deletion nomination Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Jaxon Benge
I checked the links, all dead, so qualified as deletion for BIO no references,Cotton2 (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cotton2, "dead links" do not equal "no references". Please familiarise yourself with the guidelines at Link rot. Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Precision Discovery
Hello DGG, you recently deleted the article entitled "Precision Discovery". You stated that "As reviewing administrator, I deleted the article it is basically an advertisement for the company. Furthermore, none of the indepedent references are actually about the company--they are about the general line of business". I did not get a chance to save the edits I had mate to the page before you deleted it; I had linked many of the factual terms within the service list to other wiki pages while also removing some of the bias language. I used the google inc. wiki page as well as the Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom page as examples alongside the WP guidelines while creating the page; what content is specifically seen as being biased to the point of being an advert? If I were to rewrite the article based around independent references would the page still be flagged and/or deleted? Paul Ziessler (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * After I deleted it you made some small changes, and it was immediately deleted again by another administrator.  There are three key problems:

If, and only if, you have the necessary references would it make sense to attempt an article. When you do, write it in Draft space.  DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) You must show the company is notable, according to the provisions of WP:CORP. This requires references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. For the purpose of showing notability, trade publications are not usually accepted, though they can be used for the documentation of factual material.
 * 2) Do not use puffery
 * 3) The entire attempt to discuss the principles of the profession belong in a general article, not here.
 * 4) Do not attempt to include a biography of the CEO. It's acceptable to include a single short paragraph.
 * 5) There is an expected pattern in WP articles-- see WP:Your first article for a description.

Flok re-creation?
Hallo David, Is Flok (company) essentially the same as the article AfD'd [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flok here]? Meanwhile, I think a dab page at Flok is needed even without this article ... but will have to create it at Flok (disambiguation) as the title is salted. Pam D  16:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is considerable additional material, including a NYT article on its precursor program. I give it about a 2/3 chance of passing AfD as either keep or nonconsensus. it might pass AfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alyson Hannigan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alyson Hannigan. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @DGG Thanks for your instructive participation here.Regionrat1234 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Blue Mountains panther
Here you said a7 speedy delete wasn't appropriate for Blue Mountains panther, because I guess that would be for if I made an article for my dog, but is there a speedy delete reason that would be appropriate for a cryptid with a 1-sentence article that has failed to establish notability or demonstrate any kind of sense of what the article is about since 2005, such as the Blue Mountains panther? Or do I need to AFD it? Thanks! —PermStrump ( talk )  08:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I considered using G3 Hoax, but the question about whether or not its a notable hoax is really one for the community to decide, not just you and me. I suggest AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary Stories
Some news on an old edit: turns out it wasn't a book at all, but a thing on tumblr. Quite an interesting thing, by the way--I'd buy the book if it were printed. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * there have been similar difficulties from time to time in deciding whether or not the content is only on the web.   DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. You won't be surprised to learn that these problems pop up in tenure reviews as well. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for watching COI edits on Andrij Dobriansky
I wanted to offer up a great big thank you for stepping in to comment on Conflict Of Interest issues on the wikipedia page for one Andrij Dobriansky. Your comments ring true, yet the person, Tufkaa, appears to be gung ho on offering this content to the public wikipedia audience. Having spoken to Mr. Dobriansky's still grieving widow of 40 years, she very much appreciates members of the greater Wikipedia community trying to maintain the reputability of this resource and not letting someone with a seemingly hurtful, emotional connection causing unnecessary harm to her. Since I am a new Wikipedia user and have no reputation, I really have no course of action to take on these edits in the future. Tufkaa will be able to override me. But if you, or others like you, continue to maintain an effort to not allow COI edits to exist, that will help many people - those seeking legitimate information, and those who have personal connections to the material being represented.

I will step in to attempt some more COI edits and represent Mr Dobriansky in the best, professional light. Again, thank you for stepping up and trying to help. If this bad behavior by users like Tufkaa continues, I truly hope you and others like you in the Wikipedia community can help maintain this as a truly reputable resource. ALU0819 (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, I can take care of it, with the help of, a very reliable and knowledgable specialist editor in classical music and especially opera, but we can take care of it better if you let us do it.  We do not present people in "their best professional light"; we present them objectively, in a fashion we call WP:NPOV, neutral point of view. See my comments on the article talk page for details.    DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully support DGG's approach, and ALU0819, please note that you also have a serious COI in this article and should behave accordingly. Please read the guidance at Conflict of interest. Voceditenore (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Articles for deletion/Eden English School Btl
I'm not asking you to agree with my comments there as you and I do occasionally differ with our opinions, but I do think that academically, this is an AfD you might wish to (and probably should) take a look at, particularly as a DR overturned the first closure. That said, I think that over the last year or so, the AfD process has begun to degenerate into a farce. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for your reply at the discussion. I have posted a brief question for you there, and a response would be appreciated. North America1000 21:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've disagreed with that editor many many times, including at their RfA, and they know it.  DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

06:13:48, 31 July 2016 review of submission by Kaberlt
Hi DGG. You declined my article about Maria Markus on the basis of notability not being established. There's an entire issue of a journal with 17 peer reviewed papers in it dedicated to writing about her and her importance in the field (reference #4 in my article, 'Festschrift for Maria Markus'). Also, other members of the Budapest School, of which she was a part, have Wikipedia pages. Can you give me some advice on this, because she's really a central part of the Budapest school and plays an important role in the field philosophically. Do I maybe need to make the reference to the journal issue about her more prominent? Thanks heaps for any help you can give. Kaberlt (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , I had not noticed the festschrift, and thats enough to prove notability under one of the clauses of WP:PROF. So I accepted the article, and clarified the situation by putting that in the lede. My apologies.  DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great! Kaberlt (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)