User talk:DGG/Archive 118 Nov. 2016

Books and Bytes - Issue 19
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 19, September–October 2016 by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti  Read the full newsletter 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
 * New Library Card Platform and Conference news
 * Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Softbank
You want to merge a redirect.Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, I've changed the suggested merge to the target, Softbank Group DGG ( talk ) 13:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What is merging into a redirect? A move? Xx236 (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the intent is to merge Softbank Capital into the page for the parent company. It seems a very obvious thing to do, whatever it is we are currently callig the main company.  DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Power Brain Education
It was deleted based on the old proposal. The new entry was based on newer sources (check the history of the article before they were removed).--Taeyebar 23:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , It was who deleted it, so he's the one to ask.  DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Scott Neeson page deletion
Could you reinstate this page as a draft? I had previously edited the page down to just the facts but evidently not enough and I'd like to have another go. Thanks. Josephbeckett (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem not to have edited it with this account. Under what name did pou previously edit it? DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just been checking email history on this. I work at CCF and made the last changes were made by my former colleague, Jess. If we can get the page back we'll start with a severe cut of links and detail, and just stick with the basic facts ie. being mindful of it becoming promotional.Josephbeckett (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , as a general rule, neither you nor anyone else who works at the organization should be working either on the page for the director or the page for the organization. Most people cannot do it objectively, and the state of the article on the Fund makes this obvious. But perhaps you can, so first clean up the article on the fund, and then ask me again. Pay attention to removing adjectives, and unimportant prizes ("finalist" is not an award). Remove material talking about the importance of the problem the charity addresses and similar background. --we want only what it does.  DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MPay
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MPay. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Bear Brand
This is the Bear Brand Wikipedia article which makes more encyclopedic. The variants is made from Nestlé. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (You want to talk to me?) 04:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what you mean to say is that because Bear Brand is a Nestlé trademark, this indicates it is notable. But see WP:NOTINHERITED--even for the most famous companies, not all of their products are notable. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements discussing it to show  it should not simply be listed in their list of products article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Habib Ullah Afridi page protected
I have tried to create page on Habib Ullah Afridi, but the name is protected by admin. He is a notable person and I have a perfect source links, kindly allow me to create. Thanks. Wania Khan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wania Khan One of the references that you have used and the information about him being a politician is false. The story refers to another man who's name is similar Hameed Ullah Jan Afridi. Habib Ullah Afridi has never been a member of parliament and the rest of your Wikipedia article does not meet WP:GNG. Please check this story |reliable source and this page, |former member of parliament --Domdeparis (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Pending Changes
Hi, At the recommendation of another user, I am asking if I am eligible for the pending changes perm. Thanks for your time. Pyrusca (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC). I see no reason why not, but I am almost never involved with patrolled revisions (PCI-), if that's what you mean. It would be better to ask someone else. If you mean new pages patrol,or something else, tell me so.  DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * hmm- i might get involved in WP:NPP. has been a good coach so far.Pyrusca (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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

Redirect for discussion?
Hi DGG. Some time ago you merged David D. Kirkpatrick ,reporter with David D. Kirkpatrick. I moved the first page to David D. Kirkpatrick (reporter), leaving a redirect so that the bots would fix up any double redirects. Now the first page has been tagged for Redirects for discussion. I went to that page and found a listing, but I can't find the actual discussion. I haven't dealt with any of these before. Does that mean there isn't any discussion? I can't figure out how to start one.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's one of the many included in, Space before comma, Nov. 5, hidden in the collapsed lists. I just now made a comment about it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DGG. I should have been able to figure that out.  I didn't make the connection with the discussion below.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

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


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

International Overdose Awareness Day
Recently you deleted this page based upon potential copyright issues. Is there a way to retrieve the entry in order for re-submission with the alleged copyright violation addressed? 103.253.92.96 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * it was deleted for two reasons: being mostly a copyvio from your website, and for being a promotional article intended to encourage interest in your cause. No matter how important the cause,we don't do that. If you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements,then try again, in Draft space. If you have any conflict of interest with the organization, remember that you must declare it:see WP:COI  DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, as a note, your IP talk page in fact noted the concerns about this and how copyvios are unacceptable, and this was also noted to you at WP:UNDELETE, yet you restarted the same copyvio three times again. Regardless of whether you own the contents as I believe you may have noted in the past, it's not acceptable at all, nor will it ever be. Draft:Penington Institute has been locked as a fact, so please bear this in mind. SwisterTwister   talk  06:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

50 year rule
Please comment on 50 year rule. SpinningSpark 18:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Procter & Gamble Philippines
Alexf deleted P&G Philippines! Help me! It is a Philippine subsidiary of Procter & Gamble! It is formerly named PMC (Philippine Manufecturing Company)! -- ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (You want to talk to me?) 03:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We usually do not keep articles on national subsidiaries of multinational companies. Furthermore, your article had essentially no references. It was also written in the first person "We ..." which means that either you are a representative of the company, or much more likely, copied the material from some of their press releases or web pages. Please see WP:SPAM, WP:COPYVIO and WP:Reliable sources  ..   DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Milo
Did you know that 115.133.210.227? It is upload Milo logo too large! You will block this user, it is upload the Milo logo too large. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (You want to talk to me?) 09:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * but you fixed it, so there is no problem. This is an error, not vandalism, and I do not see that anyone needs blocking. .  DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

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

File:TV5 (ABC5) Logo.png
You delete this file as a copyright infringement. You can delete this file because this is following an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the File:TV5 (ABC5) Logo.png. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (You want to talk to me?) 11:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Question
I had tagged Bookmytrainings before for A7 (I think it was me) and it was recreated. DO you th ink it could get CSD'd instead of my AFD? Also, I ask your opinion on Main Street Hub and Baby Ariel Pyrusca (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Bookmytrainings is not that promotional at them oment, and would be better dealt with by AfD,since there are references, tho not good ones. The other 2 have been deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On another note, am I elgible for the patroller right? Pyrusca (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian financial crisis (2014–present)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian financial crisis (2014–present). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Tagalog Wikipedia targeted!
Please DGG, why delete the all my followed Tagalog Wikipedia article? ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (You want to talk to me?) 08:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I only work at the English Wikipedia. As I cannot even read the language, I am unable to work at the Tagalog Wikipedia, You'll have to ask people there.  DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Revised WideOrbit submission
Hello DGG,

I've finally returned to your suggestions for improving the WideOrbit page. You were kind enough to offer these to me way back on February 2.

Per your recommendations, I've removed about 50% of the detail and over half of the citations. I agree that it is now simpler to understand this company's notability.

Please advise on whether this passes AfD - and please also my best to your colleague SisterTwister, with whom I worked on an earlier draft.

Best regards, Entroporium — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entroporium (talk • contribs) 00:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I will get there in a day or two,  DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What to do while being sanctioned?
I noticed something erroneous right now, but I am forbidden to do something due to sanctions. Unsure whether it's a big deal, but a rule of one of processes was broken. I can't implement IAR yet, which would put me in trouble. Shall I do nothing to the matter? Do you need more details, despite the risks? --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've emailed you. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Replied by email. George Ho (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Contest deletion of Chemspace
Hi DGG,

I wish to retrieve the deleted material for the future improvement. What should we pay attention to in order to improve our article ? The article about our web-source plays a vital role for research chemists and their scientific research/activity so as:

1. Our website is the biggest database of Building block (chemistry) (there is a mention about our website in this article).

2. Our website – is a huge source where the research chemists can find an important and unique information about chemical and physical properties of building blocks. Besides they can also find a chemical name of chemical structure and a unique numerical identifier assigned by Chemical Abstracts Service.

3. Research chemists, by conducting structural searches with the help of our resource, will be able to check for substances, which have already been invented, and make the right decisions on which chemicals to synthesize - all this at the stage of chemical creation.

Best regards, AJ 482 (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will get back to you tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , there's a good case for an article. I'm familiar with the usefulness of similar sources in print form, way back when I was a biochemist back in the 70s. However, there were some problems with the submission, including the list of suppliers. It would greatly help to have a few academic papers or textbooks or even methods books that discuss it. I will undelete and revise, but I need you to find some more references.  DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for your help with restructuring of Chemspace page. Ok, I understand - we will find more references, but it can take some time and we will try to do it as quickly as possible. AJ 482 (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I added a bit of information in article and new reference. If you need PDF of article which is mentioned in references - let me know, I will send you it. AJ 482 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion
Hello,

I came across this page - List of Gameloft games. It seems to be a huge list, some or much of it unsourced and some red links. To me this is pure advertising and it may be appropriate to take it to AfD - or it may not be appropriate. There must be some other way to discuss this. So, I guess I will open a discussion on the article talk page. I am hoping you will chime in. And I am hoping anyone else who reads this and is interested will also chime in. Thanks in advance.

Please see Talk:List of Gameloft games. Right now it is the only discussion on the talk page. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

we have similar lists for every company. Most include all the games, not just the notable ones. I have therefore reverted the removal by another editor of the non notable games, on the basis of apparent practice for other companies. If we make a decision about this, it should be global for all the company lists. If anyone wants to referencing them this should be easy enough. And considering our apparently very low standards for notability of games, quite possibly every one of them could be considered notable. To anticipate one common objection, lists and categories are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Categories are automatically populated, but lists can give some information.  DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

International Institute of Information Technology, Naya Raipur
??? Pyrusca (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps notable but it's a blatant advertisement so it's certainly not acceptable with those contents, hence I tagged G11. SwisterTwister   talk  19:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * pure advertisment, so I deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Kaloya jat What about this? Pyrusca (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the clan is not going to be considered notable but the village is, and we don't have an article on it. So I will turn it into an article on the village, if you don't get there first.  DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * the links must be for the entire name, because of the other similar institutes in other locations, which are names including the place. .  DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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

Academics
There is an AfD here that could possibly need your expert knowledge of Journals and H-factors. Things I'm completely out of my depth with. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

DRV
Check out my edit diff's if you wish over at Deletion review/Log/2016 November 20 other than that you made a typo "The speedy keep was really out ofpour usual process". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks; I fixed it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ajinomoto
Please help me improve the Ajinomoto template page? Because it is hard. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (You want to talk to me?) 10:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think the template adds any information which could not be better said in text in the article on the main company. If your intention is to make separate articles for each of the national brands,I would advise against it.  DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So you change this? No, it is about the template about the national brands by Ajinomoto, the every brand of the countries, it is create from the other user from upcoming times. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (You want to talk to me?) 09:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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

New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


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

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

Ajinomoto
This is the merge of the Logopedia to English Wikipedia. The Ajinomoto brand articles was I'm created to English Wikipedia for improving Ajinomoto. -- ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ 10:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Euan Sellers
Hi i want to know why my page 'Euan Sellers' has been deleted82.30.228.31 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It has now been deleted 3 times by three separate experienced administrators. It is your autobiography, and it is essentially a job application letter, and you are apparently still a trainee. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and when you become famous, someone else will write an article about you.  DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

1Face
I am the person who created the page 1Face. I went to look for it today and noticed it is no longer in Wikipedia. I see that you are the person who deleted the page but I never received any type of notification that it was going to be deleted. I would have liked the chance to address any concerns but was unaware there were any. I would request that the page be restored. Please let me know the specific concerns about the page as I do not fully understand the "concern reason" posted on the deleted page. Thanks. --Penniesloafers (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer your concerns, I'm the one who suggested deletion because it was in fact an advertisement and only advertised the company as they would themselves, and the history showed this, thus it violated our policies of having it; Wikipedia is not a business listing or a PR webhost for companies or groups, and any materials when found will be deleted if found to be unsuitable. Simply because a company exists or has influenced in its field is not a convincing improvement. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. For companies to be notable, they need actual independent news publications, and never press releases, trivial passing mentions, interviews or simply funding and company announcements. SwisterTwister   talk  18:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

recent
I am not 100% sure whether the correct response to such a weird cut and paste to a title of English education is appropriate, otherwise I will put it up for CSD if it is still there soon. JarrahTree 07:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * listed it for speedy as a duplicate of the correct title, Jakarta Maghrib, which is now, appropriately, listed for AfD. It is difficult to tell if the film might be notable if it is impossible to  decipher the article.  DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * thank you for the correct procedure and all, cheers... JarrahTree 07:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * on the cut and paste item, I was quite taken with delight to see we have a tag This article may require copy editing for horrendous grammar - there is hope yet... JarrahTree 07:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, I had not seen it before, and there certainly are occasions to use it,.  DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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


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

Nestle Bear Brand
The Bear Brand Wikipedia article is improved, because I am add variants for Bear Brand Sterilized for more notabilities. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ 10:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism of Close-up
This when I looked the vandalism of Close-Up Wikipedia article is the IP User, and it said "Lakakakakakaka". You can block up to 31 hours to be good contribute of Wikipedia. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ 10:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * not worth bothering about unless it repeats.  DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * DGG, he's bad, he's vandalize the Close-Up Wikipedia article, and its contributor is 2406:5600:7c:b651:ba5e:7bff:fef5:beba. ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ 09:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

Non-Standard Finance
Hi DGG, were my answers adequate on this? Let me know if you need any more info/clarification. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)