User talk:DGG/Archive 124 May 2017

Thank you!
Thank you for all you do to help keep Wikipedia collaborative. It's a thankless task, on the ANI board.auntieruth (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability and GNG
Summary, modified from my comment elsewhere,


 * The policy on whether we keep an article is not WP:N. The policy is WP:NOT. The guideline WP:N is the explanation for how we decide on one part of that policy, NOT INDISCRIMINATE. An article might meet that, but fail  other parts of NOT. If something is effectually promotion, it fails NOTADVOCACY, and that's enough to rule it out as encyclopedia content, because we do not advertise anything, no matter how notable.  There's no justification for keeping advertising in Wikipedia any more than there is copyvio. Unless there is a NPOV version to revert to, or unless it is immediately fixed, it should be deleted, whether by speedy G11 or at AfD. It shouldn't  be moved to draft or userified in the hope of improvement, as we might for something lacking in sources for notability but where there's a good chance of finding them. We wouldn't do that for copyvio. We wouldn't do that for BLP violations. Using WP for advertising is just as harmful. "fixable" applies in many circumstances, but not for any of these.   DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * HM. Hm. Set brain to churning with all kinds of things clicking.  Two questions:
 * Is that true, historically? I mean, was N created to flesh out NOT, explicitly?
 * Is this widely seen as true in your view? (I have never heard of it or thought about it this way.... it makes total sense however) Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * (1) See this very early version of WP:N from Sept 2006:
 * Based on several sections What Wikipedia Is Not, it is generally agreed that topics in most areas must have a certain notability in order to have an article in Wikipedia. Several guidelines have been created, or are under discussion, to indicate what is and is not notable by . (but at that point several of the proposed specific guidelines had developed to approximately their present form, with varying degrees of acceptance). The first appearance of a GNG was in Nov, 2006. by
 * (2) This my understand of the necessary implications of WP:NOT. It is my interpretation, & I think reflects the trend of decisions at AfD. It is not universally accepted; the alternate interpretation is for  keeping promotional  articles even if borderline notable,  if it is at all possible to fix the promotionalism. In choosing how to interpret, we should follow logic & consistency, but also practical considerations. My view is that accepting even temporarily promotionalism  plays into the hands of paid editors and other spammers, and that such editing has the real potential to destroy the usefulness of WP as an encyclopedia.   DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant mostly the "this guideline fleshes out NOT" thing. Thanks for the history link! Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ryos (DJ)
Hello again. Few months ago I asked you to userfy Ryos (DJ) but I didn't have enough material to justify the userfication. However, recently I've found significant, reliable sources that can help establish notability, such as. Would you userfy it after taking a look? Thanks. - The   Magnificentist  18:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I mrely judged the consensus atthe AfD--this is not my field. But the impression I get from every one of them ==& I looked at every one--is that even though they may be PR, and certainly use extravagant terms of praise, they're all forced to admit he's still a novice. There is nothing to prevent you from trying again in draft space, but if this were like any subject I do understand, I would advise you to wait till he is better known. Otherwise you risk another decision that he is not yet notable,--and those discussions, tho not visible on google, are on the permanent record and anyone who searches within WP can find them. But please feel free to ask any other admin --perhaps someone who does understand what's important in electronic dance music will comment here.  DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KartRocket, No credible indication of importance
Hi DGG, this is regarding review of KartRocket which was deleted due to not providing sufficient evidence of notability. It has been a year now and it has gained some in-depth coverage by indepenedent sources. Can you please check if following sources are good for this article.      Raghavhere (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Except for Inc42, I read all the refs, and they all are basically PR release announcing the hiringa a staff member, alongwith associate priase of the company's prospects. I consider the Inc42 PR based, but it is much more substantial than the others. As I understand it, the firm is sitill very small, if it finds raising $8 million worthy of publicity. I'd wait till ithe firm becomes more substantial, and the refs will follow.  DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

12:54:00, 2 May 2017 review of submission by IpsenGesche
Hi, I've edited the article in view of your comments. Can you please re-review it, and let me know if you need anything else to be changed? I think it reads fine now. Best wishes, Gesche
 * needed further rewriting to not sound like an advertisement. I've done it, and accepted it. Still needs the exact refs for the Times added, both print and (if available) on line.    DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Response on Proposal deletion of Sinon Loresca
Go ahead and I hope someone delete my created article. No one cares about it. ThePhilipTimes (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

another restatement of notabilty SNG vs GNG
(my argument at a recent deletion review in popular music) Consistent practice at WP has been that meeting the SNG is enough in this field. Guidelines are what we do, not just what we say, and if there is conflict between the two, it's what we do that matters. WP is not run primarily by rules, but primarily by consensus--rules are attempts to codify the usual consensus, and are valid only to the extent the community in practice supports them. re ambiguous, The rule on charting has an enormous advantage: it produces unambiguous results. Except for the need to define just what charts it is that count, there's not much room for dispute and decisions can be easily made,. Following the GNG is another matter entirely:the specifications that coverage by ""reliable"", significant coverage,  independent and  secondary and in sufficient number,   can be endlessly debated, and in all fields where we rely on the GNG they are endlessly debated-in most cases that reach AfD they can be plausibly debated in every direction, and people in practice pick what side to argue by some sort of global judgement about whether the article should belong in WP. Thus our hundred or so FaDs a day where the main discussion is the opportunity to show skill in quibbling, and the result depends on just which skilled quibblers appear at the discussion. I don't care about the individual results in this subject field, but I do care they our decisions be consistent and rational. The SNG does that--the GNG guarantees the opposite.


 * Perhaps its odd that with some degree of reputation as a skilled quibbler, and years of experience quibbling on both sides of AfDs, I want to do away with those discussions. I've experience in a lot of unnecessary things, and I'd much rather use my skills at something substantial at RSN or the like, and in figuring how to fix articles. I came here because I thought I could use quite different skills in finding refs to fix articles, but I've never had a chance to use them much. Debating as we do it is just a game. Sourcing is real.  DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Eliyahu Leon Levi
Hi DGG, I noticed you struck the listing for Eliyahu Leon Levi at WP:AN/CXT No. 9 with the comment that it is in adequate English; but how's the translation? The quality of English in the article isn't really that important; any copyeditor can do that. What we are mostly concerned with, is the accuracy of the translation, as most of the pages in this list were script-generated due to a misconfig in ContentTranslation and are either pure MT, or MT+monolingual copyedit, so don't worry too much about the English quality.

If you can vouch for accuracy of articles translated from Hebrew, the following ones in the list could use your help, if you have the time: #106, 197, 1627, 1680, and 1907. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a questionable reach for me, as I do not read the language at all. I cannot vouch for accuracy; I can vouch for the English making sense and being consistent and the facts reported being likely. Like most bios, the article is extremely straightforward and leaves little to be misinterpreted. I know the cultural significance of what's reported, and it makes sense. I would not have looked at anything more complex or where I understood nothing of the subject.   It's no worse that way than were it to have been written directly into the enWP using Hebrew sources, and certainly had it been an unacknowledged machine translation.  The only reason these articles are any different is we know instead of guess that they used machine translation.   So I shall ask a wikifriend to verify.
 * And I did likewise with a Chinese article on a straightforward political career. Again, it makes sense, but it is a language where machine translation to English is notable awful. It could be imaginary, but so could any article using Chinese sources. I'll ask for verification.
 * The other languages I've worked with I do know how to read at least somewhat, best for French and German. How well I can deal with them depends upon how simple they are. I've done translations in both from scratch, but I do not attempt deWP articles on history with their usual complicated German syntax--this is one case where it is easily possible to get mixed up. However, some types of articles are extremely formulaic. I'm most likely to run into an uncertainty regarding the equivalence of positions in different countries, tho as a librarian I know a lot of organizational equivalents.  (There's a very nice large book A manual of European languages for librarians by CG Allen. Invaluable for the Soviet era in particular.)  And if I come across anything I'm unsure about, or where I do not know the cultural equivalent, or where the original seems confused, I leave that part out. I see from the comments that other do similarly.


 * But this raises some more general questions. I was going to post on the project talk p.and I will in some more detail tomorrow:


 * How many of the articles I accept at NPP or AfC can I really vouch for the accuracy? That's an unrealistically high standard for any new page patroller--all we really check is basic verifiability.  That a translation is not quite accurate is no worse than in the English from a non-native speaker is not quite accurate, or if the sources don't actually verify what they say they do, or are unavailable. The only time we really check an article in depth is when an article is challenged at AfD or analyzed for GA or FA.  What we're looking for is basic correctness, not detail.


 * of the first 100 articles, we're accepting or redirecting almost all of them that are worth working on. Some that I could read perfectly well I am not marking for acceptance because I do not consider it worth the work, and I see others are deciding similarly. My intent is to rescue everything worth rescuing if I can do enough work. The project would be enormously simplifyied if we simply accepted translations from the Scandinavian languages. The machine translation does very well with them, because the syntax is almost identical. It also does very well with straightforward German.(as distinct from the professional level German in their longer articles)  In other languages, the most serious inaccuracy is the sequence of events because of the difference in tense use which are very often messed up by the machine translation, and the original is often a little unclear here also.  But  I'm particularly concerned the project did not screen out those articles that used the machine translation as a base, and then edited manually by the contributor or a good editor. There's no reason to assume they're incompetent.
 * Our role should be to screen out the ones that are incapably done, and not worth fixing. There are fewer than I anticipated--perhaps 25% not 50%. I also consider it our role to produce readable though not necessarily high quality English. :::I am not going to let something that can barely be deciphered pass no matter where I see it. How far it's worth fixing depends on how easy it is to fix, and it's importance.


 * If this standard is not acceptable, I might challenge the entire project using the experience I now have as the basis. The goal of all we do here is, after all, to get articles worth keeping, not to reject all problematic ones out of hand.  But in any case I do understand your advice, and will work more conservatively.    DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this very thoughtful and detailed response. You raise a lot of interesting issues regarding translation, verifiability, accuracy, quality, and others that go beyond the narrow issue here that sparked the original comment. I hang out at WP:PNT and think about translation there and in other venues (both on, and off-wiki) and I've been thinking about how to better organize this in a way to improve the encyclopedia generally, and capitalize on all the talent and interested people we have here and assemble a group of those who are interested to discuss that.  I know there's a WikiProject Translation, but for what I have in mind, I'm not sure if that's the right place for it, as I think this is something else, but anyway (sorry, I'm rambling; it's late!) let's keep in touch about this, if you would like to.
 * Back to the original topic: I understand your PoV, and in a pool of 3600 articles, it's not so important if one article more or less gets kept or not (with the exception that I hate to nuke ones that editors have worked long and hard on, unless policy really requires it) so if you want to restrike to keep this one it's fine by me, or tell me and I'll do it. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My confusion; no need to restrike E L Levi, it's still struck as you left it; I've been doing so many of these lately, can't remember which way is up! Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Librarians -- especially academic librarians -- have the distinctive requirement to be able to deal with material about which they have only the scantiest knowledge--there were about 100 professional librarians at my university, and we were expected to be able to understand the requirements of about 1000 faculty, all of whom had a world-class specialized knowledge that we could not hope to match--even those of us who became librarians after a research career had only mastered one special field, not 10 of them. This is obviously a good background for working at WP. Publishers have a similar skill, and so do reporters. This included the need to work with a range of languages--some of the faculty had an extremely impressive range indeed, but still we collected in more languages than was presently represented. But librarians do not have to truly understand the details of a book in order to catalog it, just understand it well enough to figure out what it is about and the level of the analysis. I've taught librarians also, and though no one can actually teach these abilities, I did explain to my students that if they were to win the respect of faculty, they had to at least know how to pronounce properly the words of their various specialties. (Thus I can spell and pronounce chemical and biological names much better than I can ordinary English) The same is of course true of many non-academic fields--you have to at least know the talk. So I will boldly attempt anything unless I know by experience I will make a fool of myself.
 * There's a difference among the various WPs. deWP is known for insisting on a solid university level of German, and we don't expect anything more than high school level literacy. We deal more than any other WP with people who cannot really write the language, and within limits, we encourage them. Fortunately, we have a very wide range of language and other specialists, and there is very little we cannot find someone to deal with. (The problem in that in some fields and languages there are very few of them, and they may not be representative of the range of POVs) By experience, I've learned some fields where I can, and cannot, trust the available WPedians, both here and at their own language WPs. I am very reluctant to delete anything the de or fr WPs consider notable --but this does not hold at all for some of the other European language WPs.
 * Anyway, that's where I come from intellectually. I see you understand, and I appreciate it.  DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * David, that's an interesting analysis, thanks. I'd noticed that there are many of us librarians or retired librarians editing Wikipedia, and had thought it was connected with our urge to make knowledge accessible, along with an interest in cross-references etc, but you've reminded me of our professional ability to deal with sources of information in subjects we don't understand, and up to a point in languages we don't understand. One of my first tasks as a graduate trainee librarian, many years ago, was to catalogue and classify a couple of shelves-full of books in Macedonian, with some highschool knowledge of Russian and a Macedonian-English dictionary: they'd been donated from Skopje and the chap on whose office shelves they were waiting needed the space. I've set myself the challenge of creating an article for every editathon of WP:Women in Red, whether or not it's an area I know (or care!) much about: it's an interesting exercise! Pam  D  21:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Robichaux
DGG,

I see the Chad Robichaux page has been nominated for deletion. You stated that, "promotional bio. full of puffery and uncited praise. The athletic career does not seem to meet the requirements,and there is nothing else substantial. I would not have accepted this from AfC."

Thank you for your feedback on the article. I made some edits to the page to remove any puffery. It don't understand, however, your other reasons for this being deleted. Can you help me? As I read the biography for living person page this seems to fall in line with the requirements and the coverage doesn't fall under "routine coverage" as described.

You are the expert, so however I can learn and make this page better I will gladly hear.

Panendeism concerns
You're one of the last remaining who voted in Articles for deletion/Panendeism. Thought I'd bring to your attention my comments from User talk:Ningauble, sprung from q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Panendeism. Where the ringleader basically admits it's made up by Facebook friends and they're stringing promotion along. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * . i there anything specific that needs to be done, besides watch out for it in New Pages? Or is it a matter orf removing the content inserted in other  pages--you can do that boldly yourself. Just link as you did here in the edit summary.  DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Might need to be removed wherever it is. Nothing in the real world for it outside its Facebook group and their self-published websites, and meaningless passing mentions in non-expert books. Yet the term pops up in high profile articles (God, Theism) like some idea scores of philosophers debate, always with no source or their self-published website as the source. Promoter's Wikiquote comments are enlightening - desire to push this idea based on "passionate" personal feelings about it, but complete amorphousness about its meaning anything distinct. Did heavy lifting on this on Wikiquote, I'm uncomfortable doing that here too. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Iwill, but it will be a few days until I get to it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding to submission of new article Keep Victoria Beautiful
Dear DGG,

As cited in Keep Australia Beautiful's website (http://kab.org.au/ourmission/) and wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Australia_Beautiful)

"The Keep Australia Beautiful Network (KAB), consisting of an independent federation network in each State and Territory".

Keep Victoria beautiful and Keep Australia beautiful is independent to each other although the naming might caused confusion. The Keep Australia beautiful national assiciation was founded on 1971 while Keep Victoria Beautiful, the first organisation in the association was founded in 1963.

The only common program betweens different territories in Australia is the Tidy Towns and Sustainable cities awards program. In each state, there are signature programs that belongs to each independent member. Could you please re-consider my request to publish this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cenakhoa/Keep_victoria_beautiful ?

Thank you and regards, Cenakhoa (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * let me look around at them a little.  DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you, best. Cenakhoa (talk)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Co-op Electrical
You have deleted the page I created for Co-op Electrical. I contested the deletion but I've not heard anything back. Please can you advise next steps. Thanks. TaleTreader (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I shall look either today or this weekend.  DGG ( talk ) 15:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , From the information you gave on the article talk page, the organization might well be notable. However, the article as submitted was a pure advertisement "Co-op Electrical aims to be transparent and fair at all times. Prices are clear and there are no add-ons at check out on the website. They offer cost-price extended warranties and free delivery across the whole of the UK." or "o-op Electrical managed a static strategy, remaining competitive and relevant but reduced investment." are not encyclopedic wording.  Further, there wee no references to support the material. You're welcome to try again, writing it a way more suitable for an encyclopedia than a web site, and, just as important, including references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. And remember, though it may be an "integral part of the Co-op Group which was established in 1844," this does not necessarily mean that  any particular part of it is notable. (And if you have any connection with the organization, (other than merely a member of the co-op) see WP:COI.  DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

My personal unsolicited opinion
Re Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents... unusual case where there's a lot of verbiage by many users, but not much admin engagement.

It's knotty, and certainly a close of "Content dispute, we can't adjudicate" would be justified. Maybe best. I don't know. Maybe the complainant's request is justified. But if I may: I think a formal close of something, even "Nothing for the admin corps to do here" would be a lot better than just letting it expire. After all that verbiage I think just letting it expire would be unsatisfying. Just my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Our technical limitations on using multiple titles have led to many such situations. This isn't something where we can find some way to avoid decision--a title must be one thing or the other, if only by inaction, so I agree that a close one way or other is essential. I am willing to close controversial problems like this about content, but I have already commented.    DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can ping a colleague? Herostratus (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"content that is written like an advertisement" ATM Industry Association (ATMIA)
You seem to have marked the content of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATMIA

as inappropriate. But it has already been reviewed and agreed by at least five different editors in the last three months or so. At one point, one of the editors proposed it to be deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ATMIA) but it was then decided there was sufficient evidence of independent notability. These editors helped draft the page. So I do not understand what you find offensive or inappropriate. I will appreciate some guidance in order to remove the legend / page issue. Thank you Bernardo User:CIM2014

CIM2014 (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear DGG I can imagine you are busy but I am told you are super-responsive. My response to your comment has been sitting here for almost a week. Your assistance will be much appreciated.

CIM2014 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's right there on my desktop, along with about 3 dozen other articles. I shall try to take a look today.  DGG ( talk ) 15:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Consider sentences such as "to service an industry that built around the global growth of the ATM." or "ATMIA has been an advocate of the fundamental right of freedom to choose the best payment method t"   or " to avert actions that threaten financial security and freedom of choice" -- all these are text that would reasonably appear on the organizations web page or a industry advertisement, but are not suitable for an encyclopedia Consider also  "ATMIA members and directors are frequently called to give expert advice." with one example cited--this is not neutral wording. Isupporting thisarticle at AFD but noted the non-neutral wording. You need to fix it.

In addition, I notice this is the only article on which you have worked. Possibly you have a conflict of interest--if so see WP:COI for the necessary disclosure.  DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I have not been able to find the time to work on this until now (end of term, etc). I made the relevant conflict of interest disclosure, namely I am an academic and my research deals with Automated Teller Machines (ATM). Because of that I am in contact with ATMIA but I am external, neutral and independent. I have made contributions to other entries, specially - ATM.

== [Apologies as I forgot to sign the previous comment]

Dear I have finished with the edits to be more factual and look less as an "advertising". Could you please have a look. Thanks Bernardo

CIM2014 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

== Dear Could you please have a look at this page and remove the "maintenance template". Thanks CIM2014 (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The speedy deletion template on the redirect page
I just wanted to clear up the situation there: I had originally meant to place that when it was just a sentence of information on the subject, but I suppose that intermittently between my typing and submitting, a user had changed it to a redirect page. Just wanted to clear it up so I didn't look like I was being stupid. GabetheEditor (talk cont ) 23:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * figured as much.  DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

rejected article/draft
I don't know you although you seem very successful as a Wikipedia editor. I stumbled upon your page because someone had up loaded an entry for me that you rejected as unambiguous advertising. I'm ok with your decision though I don't understand it. I have a blog with 200,000 readers, I ran for public office. I have famously representated the biggest companies In the world and have a record of important law-changing decisions and public speaking and publications. I don't want to promote myself and I reject most new business. I understand these things are not as impressive as what you do, but don't denigrate me or my career. Thanks!! ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B00F:61:14D6:5A24:43A4:7541 (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you care to tell me which article or draft, I shall take a look. I think you may have been the inadvertent victim of one of our worst features--the wording of the standard templates we use to notify people. I try to at least modify them to circumstances, but there are so many new articles  to screen, that I often fall back on using the standard ones.
 * @Pagewatchers - we could really use some help at new page patrol, so the few people doing it don't need to go too quickly DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Search for Hidden Particles copyright violation
Dear editor Thank you for your message. I still don't understand - there is no copyright notice on the http://ship.web.cern.ch/ web page. There is the CERN logo, as is for most CERN experiment web pages, but no copyright notice. Could we perhaps follow the same procedure as was done for LHCb? The LHCb experiment has a Wikipedia entry, and a collaboration web page, but there is no notice on each page that it is in the public domain. However if they signed something we can do the same. Thank you for your help and kind regards Eric van Herwijnen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanherwijnen (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a copyright notice on the main page of the CERN web site. This would normally be taken to apply to the entire site unless otherwise specified.

But that really does not matter, because by the Berne Convention everything published is copyright to the author, even without a notice Consequently we assume that all web pages are copyright unless there is a specific statement otherwise on the page or site.

Consequently, Everything published in WP is under copyright protection, not to WP which does not own the material, but to the individual person who wrote each part of the material. See the statement in the red box at the top of [[WP:COPYRIGHT].

I will need to examine the page you mention to see if the material is also copied from an outside source without their have given the necessary license. If it is, it will be removed.

I have told you that the statement you need to sign is that at WP:DCM, if you personally own the material or are authorized to do so by whoever owns the material.  DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Ann Baldwin
Hi, DGG. We share some initials. Thanks for reviewing Sarah Ann Barnum. Safe to remove the pending review tag? Dovid (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * it'sbeen done. But the article could use expnasion.  DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Augmented marked graphs
Hi, just saw your edit to Augmented marked graphs. True, people shouldn't tag a page with db-nocontent or db-nocontext so soon after the page's creation. However, by the time you removed it the courtesy window had already long passed, therefore it was completely appropriate to have the tag there (though admittedly db-nocontent is more accurate than db-nocontext in this instance). — Smjg (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * the appropriate period varies. When I saw it, it was less than an hour. What I did not realize at the time, was that it was part of a confusing complex of apparently promotional articles--the others have been also deleted, some by me.  DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your user page
I was just looking at your user page and I must say, you have some interesting reading on there. Thank you for sharing! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2017
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

 Did you know?

Did you know that you can review your changes visually?

When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "". In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.



Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.



The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and adding the new visual diff tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes
A new wikitext editing mode is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. The 2017 wikitext editor has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. Go to Special:Preferences to enable the.

A new visual diff tool is available in VisualEditor's visual mode. You can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. More features will be added to this later. In the future, this tool may be integrated into other MediaWiki components. 

The team have added multi-column support for lists of footnotes. The  block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. You can request multi-column support for your wiki. 

Other changes:
 * You can now use your web browser's function to switch typing direction in the new wikitext mode. This is particularly helpful for RTL language users like Urdu or Hebrew who have to write JavaScript or CSS. You can use Command+Shift+X or Control+Shift+X to trigger this.
 * The way to switch between the visual editing mode and the wikitext editing mode is now consistent. There is a drop-down menu that shows the two options. This is now the same in desktop and mobile web editing, and inside things that embed editing, such as Flow.
 * The item has been moved to the top of the  menu (from clicking on the  VisualEditor - Icon - Menu.svg icon) for quicker access.  There is also now a "Templates used on this page" feature there.
 * You can now create   tags (sometimes used as  ) for chemical formulas inside the visual editor.
 * Tables can be set as collapsed or un-collapsed.
 * The menu now includes characters for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and angle quotation marks (‹› and ⟨⟩) .  The team thanks the volunteer developer, Tpt.
 * A bug caused some section edit conflicts to blank the rest of the page. This has been fixed.  The team are sorry for the disruption.
 * There is a new keyboard shortcut for citations:  + +  on a PC, or  + +  on a Mac.  It is based on the keyboard shortcut for making links, which is  +  on a PC or  +  on a Mac.

Future changes

 * The VisualEditor team is working with the Community Tech team on a syntax highlighting tool. It will highlight matching pairs of   tags and other types of wikitext syntax.  You will be able to turn it on and off.  It will first become available in VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode, maybe late in 2017.
 * The kind of button used to, , and finish an edit will change in all WMF-supported wikitext editors. The new buttons will use OOjs UI.  The buttons will be larger, brighter, and easier to read.  The labels will remain the same.  You can test the new button by editing a page and adding   to the end of the URL, like this:  https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=edit&ooui=1  The old appearance will no longer be possible, even with local CSS changes.
 * The outdated 2006 wikitext editor will be removed later this year. It is used by approximately 0.03% of active editors.  See a list of editing tools on mediawiki.org if you are uncertain which one you use.

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Mainstreet Research page
Why did you delete the Mainstreet Research page

They polled prevalently in 2015 Canadian Federal election, the 2015 Alberta election, the 2017 BC election, and are polling in the 2019 federal election, the 2018 Ontario election, and the 2015 NS election.

They have been releasing public polls for years. What is the justification to delete the page?

Mikemikem (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There was nothing really to indicate that in the article, for there were no third party sources about the company. There was one reference to the firm;s web site, there were references to 3 specific polls, and there were thee references to 3 WP articles that might should been internal links. If you have any sources that can show significance of the firm itself, it would make sense for there to be an article. What I've done is undeleted it and moved it to Draft:Mainstreet Research where you can try to fix this. I started by editing for format and to remove some promotional  wording. I see you've edited extensively and skillfully  on Canadian elections, so you should be able to find a reference discussing the firm as such--or perhaps at worst to merge it with Postmedia.  Once you've added the references, let me know here on my talk p. and I will move it quickly back to mainspace.  DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, so I added links from some prominent Canadian news media that have referenced their work (CBC, CTV, Global, Ipolitics). Some of them are referencing the work they have done directly for Ipolitics and Postmedia (who seem to be their two main clients), but I know they have released polls that are not directly through Postmedia or Ipolitics that have been cited by these news outlets as well.

If there are any other issues (or this does not meet the requirement) let me know and I will try to fix it!

Also, on another note (I just do not want to create another talk to clog up your page!), the only other prominent Canadian pollster that does not have a wikipedia page is "Campaign Research." They have been releasing polls for Ontario and Federally through Hill Times for a number of months. Their pollster (since early this year) in John Corbett, who previously polled at Forum Research (another prominent pollster). However, the company is headed by Nick Kouvalis (who has a wikipedia page), a known Conservative pollster, so I am not sure what the rule would be with creating a separate page for what is essentially his business. Mikemikem (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Mikemikem
 * continued on talk p of restored article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/John Cochran (Survivor contestant)
Huh? Did you look at the "arguments" presented?  E Eng  09:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * but nobody supported your argument; however, since discussion was minimal, I shall reopen.  DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not true. I supported my argument, with evidence. The opposing !votes were classic WP:ATA, with no evidence other than e.g. "He was on a really popular show a long time!". Note I asked for someone to pick out, from the pile of primary sources and press releases, just three GNG-qualifying sources, and the answer was silence. Thanks for reopening.  E Eng  16:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * nobody else.  DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion "Cluster Asia and Europe"
Dear DGG,

you nominated the Cluster of Excellence "Asia and Europe in a Global Context" page for deletion, stating “Research program in a single university. No evidence for actual notability. All the references are from its own site.”

First of all, we would like to thank you for that feedback - there is certainly room for improvement when it comes to the article and we are grateful that you helped us see this. We would like to suggest replacing the request to delete with a request to improve – and of course, we would start working on the article and be very happy if other people helped us improving it as well.

We will address the matter on the talk page of the Cluster “Asia and Europe”. If you have any further suggestions, please feel free to share these with us any time.

Kind regards

Kjc_hd —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

, I took another look at the sources added in the first AfD. They are sufficient, so I withdrew the deletion request. But they must be added. It is essential to have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. All the sources in the article at present are press releases or from their own web site. See the article talk page for further advice.  DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

White Girl Rosé
Hi DGG, I see you were the closing admin on the speedy deletion of White Girl Rosé on May 8, with the reason cited being G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. I feel it doesn't fit the criteria for speedy deletion, as it was neutral and about a subject of public interest, with good sources (including citations from Inc., Bloomberg Businessweek, Harper's Bazaar and Downtown). The G11 criteria states that it "applies to pages that are exclusively promotional" and "any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." White Girl Rosé is pretty well known, and I'm surprised to see it get speedy deleted - at the very least I would think it should be at WP:AFD so there can be a discussion about its worth, to get a consensus. My understanding is that I'm supposed to come to the closing admin first with a request to undelete. So I ask that you consider undeleting; I understand that even if you undelete it could still be nominated for deletion through the AFD process. I'm just hoping to see it get a fair shake. Thank you.--Bernie44 (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * looking at it--I will check tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Bernie44 (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Consuelo Morales Elizondo
I think if you do this you need to add a reference. The BLP prod was readded but I declined to delete and added a reference from the Spanish Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ideally yes, but it was obvious enough without it. from the indirect reference.  DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it...
... if you'd strike your intimation that I am attempting to bully anyone. You and I have been around the project for a long time, and I don't understand what I have ever done or said to you that would merit that kind of language.

I often take it upon myself to close the last few super-overdue AfDs, a thankless task that often involves wading into touchy political fights that I have no dog in. I don't ask for or expect thanks, but I do expect that other editors (especially one as experienced as you) would assume my good faith.  A  Train ''talk 15:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * not you, but the group of people pushing so very hard for deletion of these articles at AfD and DelRev. I in fact said lower in the paragraph "the zealots ..listing for deletion" Based on your statement in the Del Rev, you are clearly not one of them. I've adjusted the wording to clarify.  DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Cochran
Articles for deletion/John Cochran (Survivor contestant)

I feel the discussion is spiraling out of control, and the nominator is being unreasonable. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You can not expect people to be reasonable in AfD discussions. The way they run here is that most people seem to go by the technicalities of sourcing rather than even attempt to use judgment. They think they are being objective, but they're wrong--for most disputed articles, arguments over the technicalities of sourcing can be used to prove either side with equal facility, once you've learned the style of argument.  DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

See adjacent AfD
There's nothing adjacent if you come to the AfD from the link on the article. I've linked "adjacent AfD" to Articles for deletion/Powerplus Group. Hope that's OK. Cabayi (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't fast enough and another AfD got in between.  DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing
Hi DGG. Is there agreed-upon procedure on how to deal with undisclosed paid editing? I'm referring to in this instance... she has been creating articles about her employer off and on for the last two months, and has been unresponsive to talk page notices. At what point does one say "that's enough" and take action? Is it something that is reportable to WP:AIV or does this fall outside of AIV's jurisdiction? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Theres unfortunately a simply answer: there is no agreed-upon procedure. My advice is that the best practical course is to delete the articles, and watch for other people who try to introduce them again . It's also usually worht a report on the WP:Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, where many people watch and which preserves the record.  DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

UAA?
Hello again DGG,

Could be an UAA violation? Should I report it? Or does it not matter because it's not exactly Al Ahly but mostly demonstrates interest in it? This would be similar to RedSoxHistory1901 but about an Egyptian sporting club. Thank you, — Paleo  Neonate  — 23:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As you say, it could be taken just as interest. I doubt it is important enough to bother with further. DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, — Paleo  Neonate  — 07:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

We've got a problem
OK. I looked at the famous on SCHOOLOUTCOMES, analyzed it some also did some thinking on my own dime. My full unfinished take is here, but don't click that link, it's long. In summary:
 * FWIW WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indeed accurate. Of 35 randomly sampled the result was 34-1 Keep (or maybe 34-0, 29-1, 29-0 depending on how you count).
 * FWIW there are valid reasons to cite WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES I think. 1) it's valid to say "this works, let's keep doing it", 2) it's valid to say "not this shit again, its a timesink, let's not do it" 3) the community has consistently expressed its opinion on the general question for 15 years, and that counts. 4) maybe others I didn't think of. It's a matter of opinion, but reasonable opinion that one can disagree with but not just blow off, I would say.
 * Examining the, I found that the closers made a mistake -- a bad one. They said "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOME... has been rejected by the community", but that's not actually true; it wasn't (I'm pretty sure; I'm still working on analyzing this, and it will take some hours; but it appears so at this point).
 * Therefore people are being given a bum steer, I would say. The poor admin over at the Deletion review/Log/2017 May 10 is having do deal with a shitshorm, and its not his fault. He followed what is written: "Firstly, I think the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is unequivocal: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist"

This is a problem IMO.

I didn't say this in public, but I have dark suspicions about the people who closed the February 17 RfC. Be that as it may, we can at least say that they demonstrated lack of acuity and diligence. As someone who has closed a couple RfC where I took a week (not 40 full hours, but still), I was appalled to see statements like "many arguments didn't make sense and were ignored". Man, that is not how you adjudicate a hugely visible and important RfC! I mean at least don't say that out loud. If you're too busy do to it right don't do it.

The key point is that the closer said "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOME... has been rejected by the community", but that isn't true, apparently (still working on this, but pretty sure it is not true). Mendacity or... lacking acuity... doesn't matter. They used this (untrue ) statement to make or authorize significant changes to a couple of pages, Articles for deletion/Common outcomes and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

My inclination is to roll back these changes and cite User:Herostratus/Understanding SCHOOLOUTCOMES as justification. Whether WP:BRD applies after three months, I don't know... doubt it. My inclination could also get me in a heap of trouble. I'd rather let jack do it. If I'm going to do it, I need cover. I have enough enemies already.

But it's important enough to not just shrug off IMO. As a matter of principle the whole affair frosts me, for one thing. Four guys supervoting on a highly visible RfC is toxic to community feeling. As a matter of practice, leaving this alone will probably result (after much wasteful drama, and admins being caught in the middle) with a blow to our coverage of high schools outside the first world.

So what to do next? Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What to do next is to vigorously defend all plausible articles, while letting the very weakest go. I'm willing to accept literally that "citing SA doesn't have consensus" Focus on the rest of the RfC, that in practice we do always keep them. Since nothing in that whole section of common outcomes is policy or even guideline, just advice. I wouldn't bother trying to upset or reconsider the RfC=, no matter how aelf-contradictory its conclusion. Policy & guidelines are important concepts in hierarchical organizations, but at WP, policy is what we do unless there's a very good reason otherwise, and a guideline is what we usually do., unless we decide not to. Usage makes the policies sand the guidelines. Even so, notability isn't even a policy, but a guideline for one part of the real policy, WP:NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and the so-called GNG is just one possible way to apply WP:N. We can use it if it helps. I don't thing it often does, because experience shows how easy it is to manipulate the details to get whatever result is desired. It's a way of arguing, not a useful guide. If I were  more  cynical, I'd support it, because it would serve my interests, as I have considerable skill and experience in arguments using it in both directions. NOT INDISCRIMINATE is an important and in my opinion necessary policy, but the details of how we choose to apply it it are what affects the results. Just don't cite it. Cite the facts, as you just did in the first sentence above: We always keep them, unless there are unusual circumstances. It's a convention justified by its utility. Remember, as WP idiosyncratically uses the term, "notability " says nothing about actual merit. It's a term of art, meaning only "worth keeping in the encyclopedia".I wish we had never started using it, but instead, said what we meant.

I cannot explain the existence of the current push against high schools. It has the effect of clogging up AfD and preventing proper consideration of the real problems here, which are promotionalism and fan support of the transiently popular. I hope that isn't the intent, but rather am misguided faith in ideological purity. WP is not the place for ideological purity. WP is driven by consensus, and the essence of consensus is compromise, not rigour. Those wh owant rigour wshould go elsewhere.

But consensus has a weakness--it an be defeated by zealots. The only defense is for sensible people to stay with their purpose, and argue each dispute as it comes up. At WP, success goes to the most persevering, Think of it as those who care the most, not those who are most stubborn. who are assumed to care the most. I was raised in a tradition of political activism, and what I was taught was: always appear at every opportunity. Let's see who has the real majority. Otherwise the minority of zealots rule, as they currently do in what I still think to be my country.  DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sciences Po
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sciences Po. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"content that is written like an advertisement" ATM Industry Association (ATMIA)
You seem to have marked the content of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATMIA

as inappropriate. But it has already been reviewed and agreed by at least five different editors in the last three months or so. At one point, one of the editors proposed it to be deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ATMIA) but it was then decided there was sufficient evidence of independent notability. These editors helped draft the page. So I do not understand what you find offensive or inappropriate. I will appreciate some guidance in order to remove the legend / page issue. Thank you Bernardo User:CIM2014

CIM2014 (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear DGG I can imagine you are busy but I am told you are super-responsive. My response to your comment has been sitting here for almost a week. Your assistance will be much appreciated.

CIM2014 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

(I have reproduced the text in May as I am still waiting for a response or any sort of acknowledgment)

CIM2014 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * . I accept that it's notable--in fact I argued for that at the AfD. Among the promotinal elements are:

"ATMIA joined an industry coalition to ..." -- this blurs the information about what they may have specifically accomplished.
 * 1) the use of references from 1st party sources and refs that do not document what the article says--for example, the NYT ref 6 does not mention the company.
 * 2) the general orientation of trying to take claim for every advance in the industry. e.g., "ATMIA has also promoted..."
 * 1) the inclusion of trivial details about founding that are usually used only to show the growth of a company--and generally out of place even there--they are completely irrelevant here.#
 * 2) wordiness. for example "the membership base included banks and other depository institutions, IADs, payment card companies, cash management service companies, interbank network companies, ATM design and manufacturing companies, and other related service providers." should be "Members include ..."
 * 3) A see also section listing everything conceivably related. It should contain only the immediately connected other things, that are not linked--the most important would be other industry association-- but not individual companies. The category box deals with them better.  DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing
Hi DGG. Is there agreed-upon procedure on how to deal with undisclosed paid editing? I'm referring to in this instance... she has been creating articles about her employer off and on for the last two months, and has been unresponsive to talk page notices. At what point does one say "that's enough" and take action? Is it something that is reportable to WP:AIV or does this fall outside of AIV's jurisdiction? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Theres unfortunately a simply answer: there is no agreed-upon procedure. My advice is that the best practical course is to delete the articles, and watch for other people who try to introduce them again . It's also usually worht a report on the WP:Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, where many people watch and which preserves the record.  DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

We've got a problem
OK. I looked at the famous on SCHOOLOUTCOMES, analyzed it some also did some thinking on my own dime. My full unfinished take is here, but don't click that link, it's long. In summary:
 * FWIW WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indeed accurate. Of 35 randomly sampled the result was 34-1 Keep (or maybe 34-0, 29-1, 29-0 depending on how you count).
 * FWIW there are valid reasons to cite WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES I think. 1) it's valid to say "this works, let's keep doing it", 2) it's valid to say "not this shit again, its a timesink, let's not do it" 3) the community has consistently expressed its opinion on the general question for 15 years, and that counts. 4) maybe others I didn't think of. It's a matter of opinion, but reasonable opinion that one can disagree with but not just blow off, I would say.
 * Examining the, I found that the closers made a mistake -- a bad one. They said "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOME... has been rejected by the community", but that's not actually true; it wasn't (I'm pretty sure; I'm still working on analyzing this, and it will take some hours; but it appears so at this point).
 * Therefore people are being given a bum steer, I would say. The poor admin over at the Deletion review/Log/2017 May 10 is having do deal with a shitshorm, and its not his fault. He followed what is written: "Firstly, I think the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is unequivocal: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist"

This is a problem IMO.

I didn't say this in public, but I have dark suspicions about the people who closed the February 17 RfC. Be that as it may, we can at least say that they demonstrated lack of acuity and diligence. As someone who has closed a couple RfC where I took a week (not 40 full hours, but still), I was appalled to see statements like "many arguments didn't make sense and were ignored". Man, that is not how you adjudicate a hugely visible and important RfC! I mean at least don't say that out loud. If you're too busy do to it right don't do it.

The key point is that the closer said "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOME... has been rejected by the community", but that isn't true, apparently (still working on this, but pretty sure it is not true). Mendacity or... lacking acuity... doesn't matter. They used this (untrue ) statement to make or authorize significant changes to a couple of pages, Articles for deletion/Common outcomes and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

My inclination is to roll back these changes and cite User:Herostratus/Understanding SCHOOLOUTCOMES as justification. Whether WP:BRD applies after three months, I don't know... doubt it. My inclination could also get me in a heap of trouble. I'd rather let jack do it. If I'm going to do it, I need cover. I have enough enemies already.

But it's important enough to not just shrug off IMO. As a matter of principle the whole affair frosts me, for one thing. Four guys supervoting on a highly visible RfC is toxic to community feeling. As a matter of practice, leaving this alone will probably result (after much wasteful drama, and admins being caught in the middle) with a blow to our coverage of high schools outside the first world.

So what to do next? Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

What to do next is to vigorously defend all plausible articles, while letting the very weakest go. I'm willing to accept literally that "citing SA doesn't have consensus" Focus on the rest of the RfC, that in practice we do always keep them. Since nothing in that whole section of common outcomes is policy or even guideline, just advice. I wouldn't bother trying to upset or reconsider the RfC=, no matter how aelf-contradictory its conclusion. Policy & guidelines are important concepts in hierarchical organizations, but at WP, policy is what we do unless there's a very good reason otherwise, and a guideline is what we usually do., unless we decide not to. Usage makes the policies sand the guidelines. Even so, notability isn't even a policy, but a guideline for one part of the real policy, WP:NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and the so-called GNG is just one possible way to apply WP:N. We can use it if it helps. I don't thing it often does, because experience shows how easy it is to manipulate the details to get whatever result is desired. It's a way of arguing, not a useful guide. If I were  more  cynical, I'd support it, because it would serve my interests, as I have considerable skill and experience in arguments using it in both directions. NOT INDISCRIMINATE is an important and in my opinion necessary policy, but the details of how we choose to apply it it are what affects the results. Just don't cite it. Cite the facts, as you just did in the first sentence above: We always keep them, unless there are unusual circumstances. It's a convention justified by its utility. Remember, as WP idiosyncratically uses the term, "notability " says nothing about actual merit. It's a term of art, meaning only "worth keeping in the encyclopedia".I wish we had never started using it, but instead, said what we meant.

I cannot explain the existence of the current push against high schools. It has the effect of clogging up AfD and preventing proper consideration of the real problems here, which are promotionalism and fan support of the transiently popular. I hope that isn't the intent, but rather am misguided faith in ideological purity. WP is not the place for ideological purity. WP is driven by consensus, and the essence of consensus is compromise, not rigour. Those wh owant rigour wshould go elsewhere.

But consensus has a weakness--it an be defeated by zealots. The only defense is for sensible people to stay with their purpose, and argue each dispute as it comes up. At WP, success goes to the most persevering, Think of it as those who care the most, not those who are most stubborn. who are assumed to care the most. I was raised in a tradition of political activism, and what I was taught was: always appear at every opportunity. Let's see who has the real majority. Otherwise the minority of zealots rule, as they currently do in what I still think to be my country.  DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"content that is written like an advertisement" ATM Industry Association (ATMIA)
You seem to have marked the content of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATMIA

as inappropriate. But it has already been reviewed and agreed by at least five different editors in the last three months or so. At one point, one of the editors proposed it to be deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ATMIA) but it was then decided there was sufficient evidence of independent notability. These editors helped draft the page. So I do not understand what you find offensive or inappropriate. I will appreciate some guidance in order to remove the legend / page issue. Thank you Bernardo User:CIM2014

CIM2014 (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear DGG I can imagine you are busy but I am told you are super-responsive. My response to your comment has been sitting here for almost a week. Your assistance will be much appreciated.

CIM2014 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's right there on my desktop, along with about 3 dozen other articles. I shall try to take a look today.  DGG ( talk ) 15:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Consider sentences such as "to service an industry that built around the global growth of the ATM." or "ATMIA has been an advocate of the fundamental right of freedom to choose the best payment method ..."   or " to avert actions that threaten financial security and freedom of choice" -- all these are text that would reasonably appear on the organizations web page or a industry advertisement, but are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Consider also  "ATMIA members and directors are frequently called to give expert advice." with one example cited--this is not neutral wording.  I supported this article at AFD but noted the non-neutral wording. You need to fix it.

In addition, I notice this is the only article on which you have worked. Possibly you have a conflict of interest--if so see WP:COI for the necessary disclosure.  DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC) CIM2014 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * . I accept that it's notable--in fact I argued for that at the AfD. Among the promotinal elements are:


 * 1) the use of references from 1st party sources and refs that do not document what the article says--for example, the NYT ref 6 does not mention the company.
 * 2) the general orientation of trying to take claim for every advance in the industry. e.g., "ATMIA has also promoted..." or "ATMIA joined an industry coalition to ..." -- this blurs the information about what they may have specifically accomplished.
 * 3) the inclusion of trivial details about founding that are usually used only to show the growth of a company--and generally out of place even there--they are completely irrelevant here.
 * 4) wordiness. for example "the membership base included banks and other depository institutions, IADs, payment card companies, cash management service companies, interbank network companies, ATM design and manufacturing companies, and other related service providers." should be "Members include ..."
 * 5) A see-also section listing everything conceivably related. It should contain only the immediately connected other things, that are not linked--the most important would be other industry association-- but not individual companies. The category box deals with them better.  DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello DGG. Would it be possible for you to merge this entry with the one above, also about the ATMIA, that has the same title? I was checking to see if I could do anything on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I will get to it and come back. Best wishes Bernardo

CIM2014 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the A10 of N. Ramachandran. I am improving/creating articles for all of the people listed here but there are/were quite a few typo errors etc in the list and, in this instance, the source itself had the error. It became apparent as soon as I began looking for additional sources to expand the stub, and since it does not appear to be a common mis-spelling I thought leaving it as a redirect would be pointless. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I figured that was the situation, and I agree with your logic.  DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Brian Levine (judge)
You speedily deleted this one day into an active AFD back in June of last year because you thought it was a "Fundamental violation of the spirit of BLP." I never got a chance to defend the article. I meant to follow up last year but forgot about it. He came up in the news again recently so I reminded myself of this. According to WP:DELREV I am supposed to discuss this first with the deleting admin so I bring this here first. Your position appears pretty strong and I suspect I won't get far here. I concede that the article was mostly negative but it reflects whatever I can found in either primary or secondary sources on this subject. Not all subjects can get an equal amount of positive and negative coverage and he is one such person. WP:NOTCENSORED. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I continue to have doubts. This is not new material of substance. I do not consider the Post reliable for BLP--these days, they;'re a tabloid in the worst sense of the word. ButI don't like to insist of my own view, so why don';t you ask another admin for an opoinion also?  DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The new links were merely meant to show that he is back in the news not so much an argument for notability. He has received continuous coverage throughout the years from from various secondary sources some better (ABA Journal) and some worse (NY Post) obviously. Bios with far less sources have survived afd and this fellow is notable based on the provided sources. The problem I see you had and others had is that the intention here is for a hit job on the subject in which only negative information is included. To this point I argue that I combed all the sources and could not find anything to counterbalance the negative information. There is nobody out there supporting him saying he is a great and fair judge (this is the crux of the overall problem - his employer benefits from him being an unfair judge). I don't really know which admin to ask - I invite you to ask someone. I would suggest reopening the article with a new afd and to allow the afd to run its 7 day course. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Brian Levine (judge)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Brian Levine (judge). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-05
Latest news from the Wikimedia Collaboration team, about Notifications, Flow and Edit Review Improvements. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.

What's new?


 * “New Filters for Edit Review” beta released: As of May 9, the New Filters for Edit Review beta has been released to all wikis. The beta lets users review edits on Recent Changes using an easier and more powerful interface and many new tools, including user-defined highlighting and, on some wikis, predictive filters powered by ORES, a machine-learning program. You must opt in to the beta to try it out.
 * More features coming soon: The New Filters are still very much in development. In addition to fixing bugs and making adjustments (here’s our current to-do list), we’re actively adding new features, many at users’ request. A few notable additions you can look for this month: A cool tool for saving filter settings; a “Watchlisted pages” filter; a “Flagged Revisions” filter (for some wikis only); a “Last revision” filter.
 * Tell us your ideas—but don’t wait: The team is focused right now in making changes to the New Filters beta. But in a few months, we’ll be moving on to other projects. So now is the time to give the new tools a try and then tell us what you think. What works well? What could make things better for you?
 * In the medium-term: By the end of summer, we plan to complete a suite of improvements that will, among other things: incorporate all the remaining Recent Changes tools into the new filtering interface; create new ways for reviewers to move back and forth through the filter queue; implement a “Reverted” filter; and, finally, bring the New Filters UI and tools to Watchlist.
 * Have time for a talk? We're looking for people we can interview about their experiences with the new beta. If you’re a regular user of Recent Changes and have tried the new features—and if you can spare an hour to chat in English with our design researcher—please email dchen@undefinedwikimedia.org with the subject line “user interview.” Let us know how to get in touch with you and what time zone (city, country...) you’re in.
 * Wish you had ORES on your wiki? Some of the more interesting New Filters for Edit Review features are dependent on the machine-learning service ORES, which is available only on a small but growing list of wikis.  For  ORES to work on a wiki, volunteers from that wiki must train it by scoring some thousands of sample edits. Here’s a link that explains how the process works and how you can get it started on your wiki.

Edit Review Improvements [ More information • Help pages ]

Recent changes
 * Comments font awesome.svg Many Recent Changes pages have on top a list of links. We plan to integrate those links in a collapsible menu. You are invited to comment the 3 proposals we have drafted on Phabricator.
 * On wikis where Flagged Revisions are used, an edit highlighted as bad by ORES will not be highlighted anymore when the edit is reviewed by someone.
 * You can highlight pages that are in your Watchlist in Recent Changes. 3 different filters are available: in watchlist, not in watchlist, new changes in watchlist.
 * Wikidata, Dutch, Czech, Hebrew, Estonian and Finnish Wikipedia now have the new filters available as a Beta feature, and ORES is enabled by default on those wikis.
 * All wikis now have the Recent changes Filters as a Beta feature.
 * Users are invited to opt in to the Recent changes Filters beta when they visit the Recent Changes page.
 * On wikis that have ORES predictions enabled by default, it is now possible to choose how to display the predictions in watchlist and recent changes pages.

Future changes
 * It will be possible soon to save and retreive your favorite filters combinations.
 * We are working on adding filter groups for last revisions, edits from Wikidata and reverted edits.

Notifications [ More information • Help pages ]

Recent changes
 * When an article you have created is linked to a Wikidata item, you can receive a notification. Wikidata and all the Wikivoyages have it since May 9th, other wikis will follow.
 * Special:Notifications tabs is now set to "Unread" if there are any unread messages.

Flow [ More information • Help pages ]

Recent changes
 * You can enable Flow as a Beta feature on your talk page on Arabic Wikipedia and Catalan Wikiquote.
 * When you send more than 50 mentions on one Flow post, you are now warned you have hit the limit.

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 15:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sunday May 21: Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon + global online challenge
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Please comment on Talk:Money.Net
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Money.Net. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

North Sunflower Medical Center
User Whpq (talk) has directed me to "discuss restoring the deleted article with the deleting administrator, User:DGG and explain that you have an OTRS ticket to confirm the release of material under a free license. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)" The Tickets are #2017051610023682 and #2017051610023637.

Permission to use copyrighted material has been confirmed with the copyright holder, who has sent confirmation to Permissions at Wikimedia under those tickets. However, Step 3 of Requesting copyright permission cannot be completed due to page already having been deleted by DGG. Step 3 states: "Add "OTRS pending" to the image description page or article talk page (whichever is applicable). This will help an editor with access to OTRS to tag the article or image with "PermissionOTRS|ticket=http://linktoticket.example.org" providing evidence of the received e-mail and clearing the status of the item in question. Providing the link to the OTRS ticket number is essential for easy verification."

I will add that the items in question are simply a photo of the facility and some details of the history of the facility that use the same language as the facility's website. Not sure why the entire page needed to be marked for speedy deletion to begin with, rather than the two items in question edited out. As far as notability, the facility is notable because it is an award-winning rural hospital serving one of the most economically disadvantaged parts of the United States, during an era when many rural hospitals have shut down or consolidated due to budget cuts.

See Whpq (talk) page for more details. Elevenrivers (talk)


 * The article was deleted for two separate reasons. In addition to the copyvio, it was  promotional. There were two sections. The section on the history which was copyvio is now licensed--it can be used, though I would advise in reducing some of the detail. The section on the facilities was also copyvio, and comprised  a list of routine and trivial services suitable for a web page-- including even material about what hours \one of the clinics is open--in full capitals.   There was additionally only one substantial third party reference--but it was from a local business journal and amounted to a press release where various members of the staff said laudatory things about their roles and their sections and the ceo praised his own efforts.
 * If I restores it in the present state it would probably be deleted. I will in a day or two   to move it to Draft:North Sunflower Medical Center  and add the copyright releae notice. where you can improve it. The key factor will be to add additional references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements.  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'm also happy to work with Wikipedia's peer review process to make the article as neutral and independent as possible. Elevenrivers (talk)


 * Hello, DGG, any update on when this will happen? " I will in a day or two    to move it to Draft:North Sunflower Medical Center  and add the copyright releae notice. where you can improve it. "Elevenrivers (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you step in here?
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, a proposed topic. What going on is RexxS unhappy about being questions I think the proposed ban is a violated of ANI purpose. I don't think he acutually think's I've done anything wrong, he is trying to show off is wikimuscle because I questioned him. Can we speedy close this, and what are the consequences for RexxS. Valoem  talk   contrib  18:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot close a discussion where I have a definite position, but I can and did comment DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone you can ask to close this, I think this ANI is clearly an attack ANI intended to bully. Valoem   talk   contrib  18:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

American Jewish Anti-Bolshevism
Can you take a look at this please. I've prodded it because I'm sure it's an amalgam of chunks of text text copied from the one source that's used but I don't have the book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, did you notice there's a snippet view of the book on Google Books? It's not great but maybe good enough to scan for copyvio.
 * (later) Oops, maybe not - it's volume 1 and the article uses volume 2 or 3. Anyway here's the link . - Bri (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

, it cannot simultaneously be OR and copyvio. And if it is not copyvio, then I do not see it as OR, but the summary of information based on a book with other sources used as well.Thestyle, with the long quotations, and the manner of referencing, suggests that it's a term paper. The snippet view is useless, it's from a quotation in the book. I tried other phrases, only ones from the quotation bring up the book. I suspect its in part a paraphrase., at least as far as organization goes. It covers a narrower scope than the current title; I moved it to American Jewish Anti-Bolshevism during the Russian Revolution. I think the way to proceed is to list it at Copyright problems  DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

VSR College
My edit at this page proper? I've moved it to proper naming and added some ref.-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   07:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC) VSR & NVR College is the main college per http://www.nannapaneni.org/about.php website. It lies in the compound of VSR & NVR College-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   08:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I accepted it and moved it to mainspace. As things go at present, it has about a 60% chance of passing AfD. What it needs is additional references,   providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements  . If you can add one or two, it should be OK.Please do that as soon as possible.   DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have provided reason why "Nexla" article should not be marked for "speedy deletion"
Dear DGG, I have provided 2 reasons why Nexla article should not be marked for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nexla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokodogo (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Don Reitz
Thank you for your input! It has been very helpful. As far as the personal tone and his motivations, I have tone down condensed the article, especially the lede. I have taken anything out that was not confirmed in the interviews he did with KCUR-FM and Smithsonian oral history as well as his Autobiography. I actually even took out the dyslexia part which he talks about in his oral history. If your concern is the Sara Period, you will find that his interviews, autobiography, and the quote I included in the article confirm their significance to him and his motivation. I was only trying to stay with secondary RS. Nonetheless, I have de-emphasized the section by merging the sections a little.

As far as adding pieces from major museums, I have added a mention of a piece in a collection to two periods of his life and added one more major exhibition in his later years.

If you have the time please take a second look and comment. Can you also remove the maintenance tags when you feel they are not necessary? But first (full disclosure), note discussions in the talkpage and at COIN. I have been told not to remove such tags myself and should ask an independent editor to do it. Otherwise, I will patiently await the several weeks necessary for a random review by a AfC reviewer. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Alexandre Gilbert
Hi there,

you deleted the page Alexandre Gilbert under the name Alexandre Gilbert (France) on October 2013. What do you think of this case? I also would like to ask for a sockpuppetry investigation, but I don't know how to do (I'm not an experienced user on this wiki)... Regards, NAH 19:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Myself, I think it's pretty likely that the article's creator,, is a sock of User:AlexLevyOne, who was involved with articles on similar topics in the past (see the SPI archive here). I'm going to ask JohnInDC, who formerly, along with me, had some interactions with the sockmaster. Deor (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's him. He's recreated a page about himself that's been deleted at least twice before.  If the singleminded recreation of the autobiography, with characteristically competent but flawed English (present tense throughout) weren't sufficient, there are telltale overlaps between his edits here and edits of known socks at :fr - for instance, NouvelleEtude has contributed here to Vincent Paronnaud, while a blocked sock of his French counterpart Albion, Mister_Gaga has edited the corresponding page at :fr, fr:Winshluss, see link.  Three of his socks at :fr were also variations on "Nouvelle"-something, and while "nouvelle" is hardly an uncommon word, it's one more thing.  See the French page collecting his socks here.  I think the article should be speedied as an article recreated by a user in evasion of his block.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I allow myself to agree with your last proposal. NAH 16:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC).
 * I've gone ahead and G5 speedied the thing and blocked NouvelleEtude as an obvious faux-nez. Anyone who wants to rake me over the coals at AN or ANI is welcome to do so. Deor (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! NAH 09:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Blockbuster LLC
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blockbuster LLC. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I Want to Know What Love Is
Can you semi-protect the page to persistent unsourced genre. 123.136.106.159 (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

NPP vs AfC
I think this explains a lot. The user had made nearly 900 patrols since 2013 until they suddenly stopped in January this year. It could account for some of the inactivity of the 400 reviewers, but I'm beginning to be convinced that many of them are hat collectors. If each of them were to do just 55 reviews (what I do on a good day, or two consecutive normal days), there would be no backlog. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

contemporary artists articles still unassessed as keep
I've been avoiding these as likely lost causes but we may as well deal with whatever we've got. Not sure what the agenda is tomorrow for you but here are some of my current art articles, in addition to that one about the guy who cast bronzes. Oh and a librarian for you: Ana_Santos_Aramburo. And also Dolors_Lamarca

Keep?
 * Venecia, Puente de Rialto (Giorgio de Chirico) - es - painting `1950, needs an editor for flowery language if kept
 * Inmaculada_Concepción_(Murillo,_1670) - I did some work on this, but is the Fundation Carlos Slim proof of notability? --- translation looking uglier than I thought
 * Alsatian Orphan - Rodin, I cleaned up the english
 * Marcela_Cernadas - never heard of her but she looks notable; at least has content
 * Jacqueline_Lacasa - runs a national art museum in Uruguay; english was horrifying and is now just bad. Read everything twice, found some cognates
 * Regina Aprijaskis - as above
 * André Dekeijser Belgian-Congolese sculptor
 * Marie Helene Aarestrup-esp please check titles of works and exhibitions
 * Lot_and_his_Daughters,_with_Sodom_and_Gomorrah_Burning what's the name of the museum? I don't think that's the official translation

''Yes I do realize that 1670 is not contemporary and neither is Rodin, but hey if you're going to be in an art museum -- any suggestions on any of these will be great. I will add to these as I go tonight.''

leaning meh unless much improved
 * Faunesa_de_pie - rodin but I don''t trust it
 * Venecia,_Puente_de_Rialto_(Giorgio_de_Chirico) - another one that seems to be another bad translation of a museum catalog; 1950 Chirico
 * Hafshejan_Elamite_brick - no doubt notable but I can't figure out how to fix, maybe you?
 * Pietro Bazzanti e Figlio Art Gallery - I find it interesting but you know someone will say it's promo, and it doesn't seem to be that well-written
 * The_Queuing_Continues

already struck but possibly of interest depending on who you are talking to
 * Mexico and the Mexicans
 * Wing_of_a_European_Roller
 * Alberto da Veiga Guignard
 * Night Travellers at a Cross

just baffling
 * Aurelio_Gonzato patented phallic device which did something or other, sounds like knxt toys I used to buy for my son
 * Evgeny_Ksenevich - definitely needs editing but I don't speak those languages or know that art, either one
 * Altar_Wings_of_Roudníky--looks important but much is mysterious

kind of rough but possibly worth an effort
 * Pablo_Zelaya_Sierra
 * Jorge_Riveros ---very long, probably too long and in the name of god isn't there a less depressing picture?
 * Apollo_(System_Copernicus)

OK so. That's enough for anyone even given superb powers of delegation. This is not homework, btw, just what I am working on, so if you have other stuff to do then fine. For all I know you are giving the keynote and were thinking along the lines of picking someone's brain for ten minutes. The art stuff is however to say the least extremely uneven and This is where I am with it. Some of the articles probably cannot be saved and also the stuff out of Carlos Slim foundation is sounding kind of sloppy. Or maybe someone just translated a lot of their catalogue? Anyway, there's that. I would like to keep the Rodin but it's where I am seeing this. Elinruby (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know the background to this but had a look at a couple out of curiosity:
 * Faunesa_de_pie - looks as if Standing female faun and Kneeling female faun should get a mention in The Gates of Hell: lots of ghits for various versions of this sculpture. The Spanish wikipedia article is longer than this English stub.
 * Aurelio Gonzato - looks like an exact translation of the Italian wikipedia article. Don't see any sign of phallic device - but perhaps that's in some other context I don't know about. Pam  D  07:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all, pleased to meet you. And, you are right about phallic, thank you. I apparently looked at "metallic planes" way way way too fast. I still can't figure out what it did though, and he patented it? was it like a transformer? Became different things? Any thoughts welcome. Do you speak Italian? Meanwhile the context to this is that told me on a different earlier talk page that he is going to an edit-a-thon at the Metropolitan museum tomorrow and it so happens that I have a bunch of art articles in this list of bad machine translations scheduled for deletion, except get this, some of them are fairly excellent articles... and then there is the stuff totally beyond my own horizons where I can't tell if it's too technical or too finnish, etc. So. what I have been doing is going down the list to make sure nobody tosses the astrophysics and cryptology articles, then I took some French under my wing, then nobody was doing Portuguese so....Please feel free to jump in. The key question is whether it would be easier to fix a given article or to start over. This is of course subjective but over a couple of iterations we have identified a lot stuff that is fine, other stuff not worth the headaches, or a whole lot more stuff somewhere in between, as with the articles above, where at least two editors appear to have machine translated museum catalogs or something possibly copyvio. And there are weirdnesses that often a sign of something wrong that someone made wronger trying to fix it. Anyway I have talked to DGG about some of these articles and hey if he is going to be at an editathon....if he potentially can enlist some editors at the editathon I thought I would share some of my bemusements. The Rodin piece is definitely worth an article but I am not sure I believe what this one says right now. Anyway, we have entire languages and fields of study that aren't being looked at much right now... we got Tang poets and Roman fortifications and WW2 missiles, origin of life, Chinese warlords, holocaust massacres in lithuania... need arabic, gujarati, chinese. Bulgarian and Portugese would also be very nice. Even if you only speak english you could still fish the Women in Red Articles out of there and that would help a bunch too. Elinruby (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately i was too much involved in other thing at the museum editathon to work on any of this. I still would like to, and I will be going back there in a few weeks. There's a NYC chapter meeting Wednesday, and I will mention the project if there's times.
 * However, I do not think it essential to decide whether or not to keep these translated articles. The purpose of the verification is to see if the basic facts are correctly translated, and whether the article is either OK as is, or worth working on further. Some of the participants in this project are of the opinion that all machine translations are hopelessly unreliable, and I think they're wrong . Certainly they are almost always in need of some degree of rewriting (more or less, depending on the language=-the Scandinavian ones are usually very close, and the ones from the languages of India very rough indeed.) A few disastrous problems in meaning have been demonstrated, so they all do do need checking. The problems are not just linguistic but cultural--not knowing the corresponding titles or special meanings  in other countries.  An interesting example is the very different meaning someone in the US, Russia, or even England is likely to think of first for the term "Civil War"--or what someone in a particular country thinks is met by "War of Independence",  (Such problems turn up not only in machine translation, but manual translation by those whose knowledge of one of the  two languages ins adequate , and even  original writing by someone with inadequate command  of English--or indeed even a native speaker working a a field where they do not know the specialist terminology. Our Wikipedia  has had probably hundreds of thousands of such articles submitted, and probably a few thousand serious problems remain.   Very few articles here have been meticulously checked against the sources by someone expert in the field, and this is why we say that nobody should use WP for serious research.
 * But those who are expert in both languages--a few of them quite specifically professional translators--want to use their professional standards, just as many of us want to have perfect English grammar in articles, or perfectly formatted citations.   But WP is the encyclopedia written by amateurs, not experts.  We want to be as good as we reasonably can, but the standard is not academic perfection.
 * the usual errors in machine translation can be dealt with by amateurs and the level of knowledge of the source knowledge necessary for this depends on the subject. I can translate basic geographical articles from  a number of languages, but I don't think there's any where I would be fully capable of doing justice to a complex philosophical or historical article. We o need our language experts, but not for everything. Anyone working with machine translations of say, the Spanish WP, knows the likely errors in tense and gender--but also should know the somewhat lower standards of notability and citation in that WP, and the vagueness of some articles written there  by those who may know the language, but not the subject. Even   a WP of the very highest standards, such as the deWP, whichI think in general quite superior to ours', uses general references in cases where we would insist on specifics  (and in many case I think they it is they who are right about that, not the enWP,  but still we must add referencing to satisfy our own expectations, whatever we think of them.
 * There's a sort of panic when people here come upon a set of particularly weak or problematic articles, leading to an over-hasty decision to delete all of them, such as attempt at the WP:AN to delete one particular editor's very brief but almost always accurate one or two sentence stubs about clearly notable scientists. The people advocating mass deletion can easily find a few conspicuously awful problems, but they're usually just a few % (there have been mass deletions that have been fully justified, such as a large group of articles on slime molds using obsolete taxonomy where most would have to be rewritten from scratch, or a group of geographical stubs using a incorrect procedure for getting material from a census. There's a saying here, better no article at all than a bad one. This is rational, if "" is used to mean awful in one sense or another. It is not rational if "bad" is used to mean inadequate. This is a place where inadequate article get fixed slowly over time. There are a great many editors here who want to improve a small part of an article, but not write an entire article. And an inadequate article on a place or non-living person can still give enough identification to help the user who knows nothing at all. DGG ( talk ) 13:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

it's ok, I knew you might and the sorting process was actually somewhat helpful in itself. And Pam came by to look at a few for me so overall it was a win. I do have some specific questions about that list if you have a moment. But I'll mention first that yes, I agree with you, but nonetheless if wp is getting crap articles because a software tool allows someone to make them faster than they can be fixed, it might be an idea to improve the process so the articles need less fixing whether they come fast or slow. I do have some thoughts about that since I have been doing some of that cleaning for a long time, but for now I am just trying to get some articles adopted before we blow up the others and I start asking you what I need to do to get rid of X2. So, in the goal of getting some articles adopted let me come back to that lost for a moment. I made some posts on the talk page last night and would especially like to know what you think of the one about Tunis. I would also like to know what you suggest about the Olympic athletes and the 18th century mathematicians? Thanks for all you do. Elinruby (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * X2 was in my opinion a major error, and what we need to do is not delete the articles, but delete X2, and reject the approach to WP on which X2 is based. Given that we're stuck with it, as we are with all of our over-hasty ill-informed decisions based on inadequate evidence.  There will be more--our manner of decision making is subject to such decisions unless they are immediately and vigorously opposed, and get widespread attention.  Whether every verifiable Olympic athlete should be notable is an open question, but WP at this time treats them as such. If the original language source or the translation appears to verify, the article must be kept. The articles on 18th century mathematicians follow the same rules as later ones: if they held a major university appointment, or had notable disciples, or published important works, or have something named after them, they will meet WP:PROF.
 * Unfortunately, there are at least two other situations where I need to do similar rescue: the attempt at WP:AN to remove all the 1000 or so subs by a particular contributor on the basis that 1% of them are inaccurate, and the attempt to delete G13 without looking at the drafts to see whether any are salvageable or even ready for mainspace. I feel overwhelmed to the extent that I am almost unable to work on any of them, and need to force myself to work here at all.   DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Koren_Specific_Technique
As you are involved, I was wondering if you would like to input, I believe this is the 4th discussion started a year ago. The general argument for merge is that the subject is short and cannot be expanded, I have presented an argument that KST is not universally considered chiropractics, with Koren himself stating "KST is an analysis protocol not a chiropractic technique" claiming it is a healthcare protocol. I believe the sources provided by Cunard shows the subject can be expanded. You were also pinged by QuackGuru here. Valoem  talk   contrib  15:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I commented in the discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with my St. Vincent (musician) edit and breakdown in getting it to stick Comment
Hi David! It's SheridanFord from the Wikimedia NYC chapter. Last month you offered to help me problem-solve around this edit from way back in January. I got stuck with the edit-war around it and haven't come back to it. I want to finish adding to this article. I spent 2 hours while recovering from foot surgery doing this work. Here's the old version that was reverted. SummerPhD2.0 and her bots kept reverting me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Vincent_(musician)&oldid=762400209.

Any insights would be greatly appreciated. I showed my edit to several academics who thought it was neutral in perspective given the sources I used. I am still learning the norms and values of the crowd around here. Thanks in advance for your help. Best --sheridanford (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've started, but it will take a while.First step: are there 2007 sources?  DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Things like this are what I find confusing...
A philanthropist who donates millions to research isn't worthy of inclusion in WP, but a film that hasn't been distributed yet, such as Bank Chor, is worthy. I don't get it. Atsme 📞📧 03:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Our notability guidelines for pop culture subjects (celebs, film, sport) are very gameable, especially so when the local media are – ahem – particularly friendly towards the pop culture subjects. Because of the futility, and general ennui, I don't usually try to fix those articles anymore. - Bri (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I still support articles on billionaires, but anything less does not much impress me unless they've accomplished something something. "philanthropist" is a very easy claim--as I see it, it requires active participation, not just money.  DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, DGG - but the point of my question was about a film that was produced, not yet distributed to the public or seen, and is considered worthy of inclusion in our encyclopedia. Do you support that?  If so, why, because that's the part I'm not understanding. Atsme 📞📧 09:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Films from India are a problem,  because the article written here are usually inadequate, even for important films, the sources are hopelessly contaminated by advertising, and there is generally no practical way to search for additional sources.  In consequence,  I no longer attempt to  work with them. The film was discussed a few days ago at Articles for deletion/Bank Chor, A rational case was made for the importance of the film, even if the author of the article was unaware that he should have shown it was in principal photography. The film is supposed to open next month. There were 2 keep comments and no delete comments; the experienced admin,,  quite reasonably closed keep.  On the basis of the material presented, I would have closed the same way.  If you disagree, you can file another AfD in a month or so; there is no point going to Del Rev, because the consensus there will almost certainly say just what I did, that no other close was plausible.
 * If you think particular films are not notable, use deletion processes, If you think the standards are too low, try to get them raised. If you think (as I do) that the sources are unreliable, try to get consensus for that--but be aware they are generally the only practical sources we have for material from that country. If you think you can find better, that would be a major step forward, and a very helpful thing for WP.
 * My own view of the relative importance of different topic fields has been stated many times: we are a collection of smaller communities, and the basic rule for coexistence is to tolerate each other. My own view of the usefulness of the GNG as a standard for inclusion has also been stated many times: utterly worthless except perhaps as a last resort.  DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Userspace drafts
Hi there, DGG. I understand that you feel strongly that "We can and should delete drafts when there is no hope of an article", but you do realize that the outcome of last year's WP:CONSENSUS, reflected in WP:STALE, is something different, right? That WP:GNG do not apply in user- and draft- space and that neglect of a draft wasn't grounds for deletion, etc.... Do you think it might be better to change the policy, rather than going around it? Because that's how the SD requests look to me. I'm not being tendentious, either; just trying to have good faith dialogue. Newimpartial (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not mention the GNG in these arguments; I agree it does not apply outside article space, and I have in fact argued that it should not apply.  As for speedy, I have never listed a speedy for a draft or users space  except for the reasons that are appropriate there, which include G11. It is true I think we should use G11 much more energetically. I remind you that while the RfCs said that G13 does not apply except in draft space, they did say that "For userspace drafts where notability is unlikely to be achieved, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely. However, the community did not arrive at a specified time duration."  and, for userspace drafts, " They can be deleted, but it should be done on grounds different than solely the age of the draft or the period the draft has not been edited." Therefore, the outcome for individual items is subject to consensus at the MfD. That's always been the case for deletion process.  The two fundamental principles involved are WP is an encyclopedia, and IAR.
 * Simultaneous, I very strong disapprove of the use of G13 for improvable drafts, and most especially for drafts that are already good enogu hfor article space but where inappropriately declined. We need to find a workable system for proper notification and working on them.It and everything else about AfC would be helped by clearing out the hopeless.  DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK; I can see where you're coming from. And I agree that MfD is the place to adjudicate these deletion requests. But that is why I have the problem I do with speedy G11s - it seems to me that many of them aren't G11 at all, but just wimpy early drafts; in cases where they really are WP:SPAM I have no problem seeing them deleted by consensus. But in my deletion review, you say that User:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx "would be a good Speedy anywhere" - but I don't see how it is WP:SPAM at all. It's just a baby article lol. Newimpartial (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On a related note, can I just say that it is difficult for me to find you so insightful here , and not just because you agree with me :), but so cavalier about userspace deletion here . I get whiplash. lol. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a high regard for keeping anything that might be a promising article, and a low tolerance for anything that's going to remain useless. Obviously, views on what falls into these categories will differ. G11 is a criterion which is not as obvious as it claims to be, but it's our best defense against those who would debase the encyclopedia. My priorities vary with time as our needs differ. Ten years ago it was critical to supportg broad inclusiveness, now to resist promotionalism. But I shall look again at the del rev.   DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC) and I did. your argument did have some merit.  DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * More generally, as with most guidelines and policies in WP, the meaning of the  deletion criteria depends a great deal on how they are interpreted. The interpretation is done by the accumulated and sometimes changing consensus  the talk pages of the noticeboards and policy/guideline pages, and by the very variable decisions at individual instances. The result is sometimes a considerable gap between the formal wording and the effectual applications of it. Some things are interpreted very narrowly, some very broadly; some very strictly, and some very permissively.. Individual people differ, and the consensus is affect by which individual show up at a given argument. Every one of us who participates in these arguments has a different view of it.  That said, there are some constants: the clearest example is that BLP tends to be interpreted strictly and broadly (more broadly than I really think justified); copyvio also strictly (and again more broadly than I think necessary--we are much less permissive than USLaw about fair use); most speedy criteria somewhat more broadly than they are written; WP:V is often disregarded unless someone protests,
 * The result, of course, is an encyclopedia full of inconsistencies, with consequent difficult for new users in figuring out just what is permitted. But this is inherent in the underlying working method of the encyclopedia -- we make our own rules, we make what exceptions we please, and there is no person or group that who can definitively settle disputes about content. The only reason this works is because of mutual tolerance, including the rule that admins must follow the consensus interpretation whether or not they like it.   There is consequently a strong feeling against individual who try  too insistently to make a point  overemphasizing  any one thing--they disturb what little equilibrium we have.  Working with deletion processes involves tolerating an especially large amount of ambiguity and stupid decisions. Those who want a more predictable environment, would do better to work on vandalism or copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been very cordial. Do you have any thoughts about my new ANI? Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Commented,. I think at this you will learn more by just watching some AFD discussion than by asking questions. atching is safe, but watch a good while before you start to comment there. The best course for you at the moment, however, is just to do something else for a while, like write or improve some articles.  DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will be back editing and writing draft articles forthwith, but I won't put any new articles into userspace until I feel that I can stop looking over my shoulder for deletionists. You know, I lurked at MfD for about a week, on and off, without commenting, and really felt that I grasped the letter of the policies. Now I understand the letter plays into my own idiosyncrasies, and isn't the main thing that counts. But my reason for lurking in the first place? Fear of deletion lol. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of pharmacies
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of pharmacies. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

CLEANSTART
Hello DGG. I am frustrated from couple of days due to my actions. Those actions have made me invaluable in the community. I am much experienced now than 2 years ago. But previous contributions always present as someone who damages Wikipedia. Don't know, I have done anything wrong. I have decided to opt for WP:FRESHSTART and will make quality contributions in the future. I have already started it focusing on quality rather than quantity. I want your advice in this regard. Happy editing DGG. Thanks.  Greenbörg  (talk)  09:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that I think you need to understand why the nomination for AfD that you made were not appropriate.  DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail
Dear DGG, Can you please un-delete the page of mine that you have deleted early morning today? Flat Out marked my page within 1 hour of its creation. I have not yet finished working on it. Within another few hours the page was deleted. This is what was on the page: "Reviewer tools: policy project (talk • bio • log)  Move: draft space The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC).  Big text  " It is 29-MAY-2017... I consider deletion of page without giving an ability to respond an issue. Can please either restore the page or move to Draft Space, so I can find it. I appreciate your understanding and help with this.

- Artilectual14 Artilectual14 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * restored. My error. I've replied to your email.  DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Bill Stromberg
I'll refrain from reverting your edit again at Bill Stromberg in the interest of not starting an editing war over a triviality. What is the purpose of the ", alon." that you added at the end of the sentence you altered? Reads to me as a typo, as I don't know an abbreviation or shorthand its referring to.

Epd123 (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * my typo, thanks for catching it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But I see that you have not yet declared your COI with Stromberg; there must be some, since you disclosed your coi with his company.  DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

North Sunflower Medical Center redux
Hi DGG, any update on this from back on May 19, 2017? "I will in a day or two to move it to Draft:North Sunflower Medical Center and add the copyright releae notice. where you can improve it." (From: User_talk:DGG) Elevenrivers (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

British Icelandic Expedition
Hi DGG. I've removed your addition to British Icelandic Expedition. Clearly, there are two distinct expeditions here (names and dates don't match): a successful one in 1989 which the article focuses on but for which I can find no references and a 2015 expedition which was a failure and for which you did add two sources. I would still argue that the latter is not notable since the coverage was very much limited in time and scope. As for the former, I'm tempted to send it to AfD since the claim that "A great deal of interest surrounded the team" is unreferenced. An alternative (though at least one ref would probably still be needed) is to redirect to the article on the glacier Vatnajökull. Thoughts? Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I too was thinking this morning that there might have been   some mismatch.  The 2015 fiasco is probably not notable, and would I think come under NOT NEWS.  The 1989 may well be, but we do need references. I'll do some looking also; otherwise a redirect makes sense. Thanks for catching this.  DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)