User talk:DGG/Archive 127 Aug. 2017

Best, Nramesh (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , why are you in a time crunch to have this article published? I can think of only two reasons, one is your wrote it for a school assignment, (which seems unlikely_; the other is that your wrote it for pay. In the latter case, see WP:COI and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure.  DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * {{u|Nramesh}: I believe I did respond. I don't have access to the AfC helper script anymore which is why I redirected you to WP:AFCHELP.    Dr Strauss   talk   20:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Tekfusion
Dear friend, I was watching and working on the Tekfusion page which you deleted recently. I would like to inform you that Tekfusion is a notable audio brand in India, and there were credible sources in the article of the organization as well. I would like to request for undeletion, and discuss it further in the article's talk page. I would also like to continue editing it, and I would be adding some more credible references to it over time. I thank you for taking your time to read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKumar86 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that you simultaneously created an article on the company and its founder. It is reasonable for me to ask you whether  you have  any connection with either of them, aside from being an interested hobbyist?  DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt reply. To clear your doubt, I am not affiliated with the company or its founder. I felt that some information about the founder was missing on the company article itself, and the readers would find it beneficial to read more about the founders as well, due to which I created that page, which can be linked to the original company article. I would also wish if you can restore the article about the co-founder as well, as it will help the page of the organization to be expanded for further readability and I would like to seek any corrections on the same. Also, my keen interest, which is also a hobby, is to contribute about the noteworthy companies in India, which is a great topic to read and write about. As a learner and contributor of Wiki, I always appreciate and find any piece of advice from the senior editors and admins like yourself of great value. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKumar86 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We very much need good editors in this field--the problem is that almost all articles on small and medium sized Indian companies have been based upon unreliable sources--mere announcements, or downright press releases, or press releases reprinted by newspapers. Many haver relied upon unimportant awards and minor charitable donations. Only for the largest companies has it been possible to find anything better. If you can find suitable sources, there's a great deal of good you can do here.
 * , There are some differences between the English WP and other WPs. But I do not see you as being active under the current username at any other WPs besides this and Commons. Normally the same user name is used on all projects, so it would help to give on you user page any other names you have been using on other language WPs, and I can then give you more exact advice.  DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about the unreliable sources used in some company pages in India, which is the reason why I will be observing some upcoming and noteworthy company pages and help contribute in improving the existing pages by adding relevant credible sources to them. I only have one userid under the WP English because I am not competent enough in other languages in terms of writing. I was presently working on the Tekfusion page, and would wish to continue editing it and improving on it once you undelete it, as this will give me confidence in continuing my contributions and would surely appreciate any future guidance from your side or other admins.

Hey buddy, are you still with me? I was waiting for the undeletion of the page, so that I can continue with my edits. Awaiting an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKumar86 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tagged RaviKumar86 & JMMehta123 with a uw-agf-sock but for activity on this wiki only. Cabayi (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've answered you in my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKumar86 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@DGG - Thanks and I have removed majority of press releases and improved it by replacing some journal entries on it. I will be improving it over time. Can you publish the draft ? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKumar86 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles about academics
In section '"Articles" about academics' in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not you wrote an elaborated treatise on WP:NPROF. IMO it is quite useful. Why don't you put it in an essay? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I will work on it -- it needs some supplementation.  DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Touching base
Hi DGG: Just letting you know, despite some disagreements we have in AfD discussions, I never take matters personally, and view AfD discussion simply as what they are, a forum for debate about Wikipedia articles. My stance is typically to be as objective and fair as possible, to ensure the highest standards of accuracy. In part, this is a reason why I provide sources in AfD discussions, rather than simply stating "keep - meets gng" or "delete - fails N", etc. This serves to provide an accurate overview regarding a topic's potential notability, or lack thereof. Ultimately, I base my commentary at AfD upon research and facts, avoiding conjecture and subjective rationales. When I walk away from a debate, and when a discussion is eventually closed, I move on, with no hard feelings whatsoever at any time. I wanted to let you know this because the mode of communicating on Wikipedia via typing can be impersonal, whereby one's intentions are not always easy to express or convey.

After seeing you at AfD for some time now, I understand your stance about some company articles, that some of them are not needed in the encyclopedia. I have no problem with your stance, even though I don't always agree with it, but this is relative to each individual article for me, rather than as a macro-level philosophy. In other words, I assess each topic individually, per the merits of that particular topic relative to notability, whether or not an article is promotional, and if so, to what degree (e.g. fixable or a WP:G11 situation), etc. I am also aware that some news sources are derived from press releases, just so you know. You'd be surprised at how many news articles from my searches that I don't provide in AfD discussions, per obvious PR ties. I find myself continuously skipping over articles from internet searches that are not appropriate to establish notability. Sometimes, one has to go through ten or more Google search pages to find one or two usable sources. North America1000 16:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Small differences (or even fairly large differences) in the notability standard do not greatly harm the basic usefulness and values of the encyclopedia. Almost any general position on notability can be justified. Most disputed articles can be reasonably argued in either direction, and the actual question is which articles are worth defending--and which are most in need of removing.
 * But with respect to promotionalism, any compromise here will tend to destroy not just the usefulness but the basic values of the encyclopedia; if we become a vehicle of promotional content we have no purpose--Google does it better. And there's no reason  volunteers would be interested in doing for free what they might get paid for. The essential group of articles that should not be improved or defended are those that are of a basically promotional purpose--especially those likely to have been written by undeclared paid editors. The people who write such articles should if misguided volunteers be educated and if paid, removed from WP. The only possible exception is if an article is so essential that the encyclopedia would be defective without it, and if it would be much easier to rewrite than to start over. Even here I am undecided whether it would be always best to first delete the history and then eventually rewrite.
 * To the extent your work--however skillful-- is helping such articles remain, you are acting against the principles of WP. Your view undoubtedly differs, but I'm using my priviledge on my own talk p. to close the topic here. We've both plenty of opportunities to say it elsewhere, and neither of us is shy about using them. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. In closing, I'll just say that what is considered promotional is in the eye of the beholder. As an editor and WP:COMPANIES member, I pay close attention to maintaining neutral pov and prose when contributing to company-related articles. I'm definitely not here to promote anything. Regards, North America1000 04:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * the actual last post on this thread: you are not be editing for promotional purposes, but you are helping the people who are accomplish their goals of getting an article in wp. Even if the article at the end is not promotional, you are helping people editing against the terms of use not get their article deleted. And you are helping companies get an article who would not otherwise be noticed here. I consider such editing a danger to the encyclopedia, and I will try to diminish the bad effects when I can.     DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
--Pine✉ 22:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Jake Brockman. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Professor Paul Morrissey, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I was curious about this so had a look ... I see you nominated it as G12, but it's not really total copyvio: the first sentence is nicked from that source, but much of the rest of the article content isn't even in it, reworded or otherwise. Not sure why you nominated it A10 earlier - there are two different Paul Morrisseys who have made films (at least in the belief of imdb where they have separate entries) and I can't see another pre-existing article. I've moved this one to a less bad title of Paul Morrissey (professor) - though in fact the Liverpool John Moores University website makes no mention of him which is pretty strange. A lot going on here. Pam  D  16:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah well, it's gone now. Pam  D  16:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calendar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calendar. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Halstead Property for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Halstead Property is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Halstead Property until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability question
Hello. I came across this article, Social Bite. It appears to be a notable non-profit and some of its claim to notability is this has garnered notice from some A-list Hollywood celebrities. However, after I stopped being enamoured for a bit, I noticed the coverage seems to be based on recycled press releases that have made their way into the Scottish newspapers. My own research led me to a group of articles that seem to be recycling the same press release (see this).

So my question is how best to deal with this? Maybe this is not a notable topic, because, in essence, the topic lacks independent coverage. Or maybe it is notable? I am also pinging to hopefully also offer an opinion. Thanks in advance to both of you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asked but I will answer briefly anyway. Looks notable IMO, regional (not local) importance with RS coverage. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Steve Quinn, I'm usually very wary of such enterprises, but in this case the sourcing seems to be decent enough. Press release-based/inspired or not, they've gained coverage in reliable and notable papers, and that is what matters. My 2 cents. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite so sure--organizations like this live by publicity. This is a press release, not an NPOV article. But it's a high-quality sensible press release--much more apppropriate than the usual stuff thaat gets written here for organizations of this nature. But consider the same contributor's Draft:Josh Littlejohn -- the 2 articles are part of the same press campaign -- and the bio one is nowhere near as good because it's less focussed, and falls into the common PR style of using a string of very short paragraphs--which is at WP diagnostic of either a press release or an inexperienced good faith contributor naive writer who doesnt yet understand how to write an encyclopedia article.  DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh sure it's definitely a publicity campaign. But it appears to have become a notable publicity campaign. The Sun for instance has slightly different coverage of the celebs involved and doesn't use the founders quotes in the press releases at all. So it's not straight up churnalism. I actually based my quick judgement mainly on the names of the sources, and on the award issued by The Guardian; our convention is that if the issuer of the award is notable, then the award probably is too. If I'm reading DGG's tone accurately, then neither of us is fond of the article, but chances are it would survive AfD easily. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, that's what I was trying to say: there are so many worse ones to work on removing. But I will probably nominate the bio on Littljohn for deletion if it reaches mainspace in its current condition.  DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be a jerk, but doesn't an MBE satisfy WP:ANYBIO criterion #1? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * While MBEs are handed out as long-service awards to middle ranking civil servants, No. For other recipients like Olympic medallists, the MBE is a consequence of being notable rather than the cause of their notability. Cabayi (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * in more detail, I think we always recognize the rank of CBE (Commander) -- and higher-- as notable; there are according to Order of the British Empire only 6980 Commandeers. The next lower, the OBE (Officer) has 858 appointments each year; the MBE (Member) 1484 peer year. MBE, at the bottom, we include in the article, but it doesn't contribute much to notability; OBE contributes to notability but doesn't amount to presumptive notability. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

anova
Hello DGG, I contested the deletion in the talk page of Anova_Culinary. I'm the original creator of the article so I guess I shouldn't remove the notice even when the article was created from another account. Kellyhei (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , that's OK, the article is perhaps worth discussing. I think the firm is probably notable, though perhaps the actual notability is more in the brand than the company. But how can an article that is more than half composed of a list of products  with a paragraph each on their features, containing such phrases as "consumer-friendly price point" ,"edge-to-edge results", "notifies users when their food is warm" , "synchronize the entire meal"  "can be submerged in up to one liter of water" , "minimal water bath-fill of 2.44-inches", quality form of feedback", " makes it easy to cook with Anova", "New time and temperature guides are added regularly to thousands of recipes" , "tested timing and temperature charts, step-by-step photographs, and instructions. " and PR wording like "help bolster the popularity of sous vide in America.", "an Anova representative reached out to David to put him in touch with the Anova software team" not be considered as an advertisement?
 * It's a fairly effective advertisement as that--quite straightforward. But you must either remove all thee pr & advertising, and remove refs to some of the more promotional articles, or I  or someone will list it for deletion by our usual process, and I think it will be deleted.  I know you're a hobbyist, not a company rep, but such is the pervasiveness of promotional writing in our society, that other people tend to write similarly. I will look again in  2 or 3 days.  DGG ( talk ) 14:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have done rephrasing of the mentioned sentences, deletion of some, even though I have comments on some of them.
 * "edge-to-edge results" means that it's maintaining the same shape after cooking as opposed to normal way of cooking through temperature control.
 * "notifies users when their food is warm", I think you mean "notifies users when their food is ready, and keeps it warm until they're ready to eat"? That's a fact. I don't know how we should update this.
 * "synchronize the entire meal" replaced by "synchronize meals" and that's a feature in the product.
 * I have done what I see is right. If you have other opinions, or perspective, please go ahead and update to what you see is right. We can discuss it there in the talk page if necessary. I can't get it perfect alone and that should be your priority instead of leaving me alone with the updates or it gets deleted. Have a good day! Kellyhei (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review
Also pinging and obviously DGG- Do you think that this is a reliable source that can be effectively used to assert that Phys.org practices credible science journalism in the lead of Phys.org esp. when several other WP:RS point to the contrary? Cheers! If anybody wants to read about the entire issue, please arrive at WP:DRN.But chances of tl;dr are huge Winged Blades Godric  10:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am reluctant to comment on an ongoing DRN case while it is running. If this is still an issue after the DRN case closes, please post a question on the reliable sources noticeboard. I watch that board and will be glad to comment when I see the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, --I know that no other boards shall take cases concurrently with DRN and vice-versa.But a moderator shall have the power to skew certain rules esp. if it helps to mitigate the dispute.It's something like when I asked about a source to Kudpung as a neutral party in the IACA DRN thread and his excellent conclusions were happily accepted by both the warring parties.Some sort of an experienced 3O in midst of a DRN can sincerely help the cause--reshaping the opinions of both the parties. (It's a fact though that either of the parties can choose to not accept your version--resulting in the very stalemate that we are currently in! That will lead to shutting the case.... But, I wish to give this a try!) Still, if you feel uncomfortable, you are free to not respond. Winged Blades Godric 10:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:	#7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

 

Wikimania report
Interviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing. Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Wikipedia medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages.

Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example.

"Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3.

Link

 * Plaudit for the Medical Wikipedia app, content that is loaded into Internet-In-A-Box with other material, such as per-country documentation.

Editor. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * }

Greetings in Montreal
Hi DGG, thanks for coming to chat after the Undisclosed Paid Editing meetup yesterday. The person who had been sitting next to me was, I think, User:Rachel Helps (BYU). We didn't have our badges on so I didn't realize it was you. I've always admired your perspectives and I hope to see you again at the conference. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * by that time of day, many of us didn't. I'll me here all the way to the end--and if you don't see me otherwise, look for me at lunch. Today I'm also clear the end of the afternoon.  DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was there but I left early. I have circular glasses if that helps. It was an interesting discussion! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cleeng
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cleeng. 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. Zaynha (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorting by size of edit - not exactly, but maybe close enough?
In one of our many hallway discussions, you mentioned the desire to see edits sorted by size of edits. While you have copied the edit history into a spreadsheet to do this sort, that's pretty cumbersome. I wondered if the revision history statistics were sortable and it turns out they are. This isn't exactly what you wanted because it gives you the total added bytes by user as opposed to by individual edit but it might be close enough for you purposes.

Example: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Eugene_Gu&project=en.wikipedia.org

The link doesn't seem to save the sorting but if you go down to the top editor section you can sort on "added (bytes)"-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a start. Thanks for the help. (Soritng in an external spreadsheet is for anythign substantial avery cumbersome solution,  it is a backup for missing features in many places, on and off WP.) DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

a "Washington Times" extant in 1974?
As a librarian, can you identify the existence of a newspaper called Washington Times that was extant in 1974? There is a statement in the Jared Taylor wiki article (permalink in case that statement gets commented out or deleted ) that he was news editor at such a publication 1974–1975. It appears to me that Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History, published in 2011, merely copied that info from Taylor's own website or took his or his publicist's word for it, since no explanation is given in the book what the publication actually was. Thanks for any help. Any ancillary information about the publication (location, intent, years of existence, readership, circulation, political spectrum, history, etc., would also be useful.  Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * commented there.  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:DAT Solutions
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:DAT Solutions. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have time, I would appreciate further details of the advertisement language you see on DAT Solutions for that I can correct the issues. Thanks! &#32;— RossO (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Eugene_Plotkin_(mathematician)
Notable or not? Bearian (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably. I cannot judge the mathematics. But "Leading Research Fellow and Professor " at Bielefeld is I think a major position. He has at least one paper with over 100 citations, and in mathematics, a low citation density field, that probably is enough. I did some editing.  DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for a quick check on notability
Thanks very much for reviewing one of my first page creations yesterday (Terence Cave, which I simply translated from a German article). As well as modifying some existing pages I've also added a couple of additional new pages, and a Wikipedia user pointed out that one of them, a full professor in London, J. P. E. Harper-Scott, might not count as notable because there were no secondary sources. I'm still very new to being an editor, and learning fast, so I added a few sources and was told the sources looked good but that they still might not qualify as indicating notability. I guess it's a judgement thing. I'm keen to get started in the right spirit, so I wondered whether you might be able to look at/review the page to see if it looks like the right sort of thing to you, since you clearly have a lot of experience here. If not, I'll stick to translating existing pages for now. Thanks for your time. Constituent12 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no question that Harper-Scott is notable. Our policy on academics is quite cleat at WP:PROf, and it is altogether separate from the WP:GNG. Secondary sources to show notability are not necessary in the sense they are in the GNG: any of the accomplishments mehntioned in WP:PROF is sufficient proof-- not just indication, not just presumption, not just evidence, but proof. In this case the two key factorsaretheeditorship and his being an authority in his field. That last point is sometimes debatable, but for people whose main academic work is books, books y major academci publishers are sufficient.


 * But I have some questions: 1: what is the exact publication data for his books--in the usual academci format--reference it by their worldcat entries. 2.what are the exact references for   Begbie (2012): p. 202, ^ Beard and Gloag (2016): 211, ^ Kramer (2016): p. 3, ^ Hicks (2014): p. 41?   If you wrote the in this form, they were probably copied from somewhere, and the wording of the paragraph on his work they cite indicates that it too may have been taken from another source. If that's the case, the paragraph must be rewritten.    3. The article needs the facts of his professional and personal life: birthdate and place, schooling and successive degrees (with place and date), successive academic jobs (with place and dates)


 * There are a few people here who insist on denying the consensus on academics, but it is avery firm consensus, holding for at least ten years now. Don't let them bother you--if any actually list an article for deletion, let me know,and I will try to deal with it--as I have with tens of thousands of other such articles (which does include, of course, getting removed the 10% of the ones submitted that are in fact not notable)  DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:DAT Solutions
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:DAT Solutions. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have time, I would appreciate further details of the advertisement language you see on DAT Solutions for that I can correct the issues. Thanks! &#32;— RossO (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for a quick check on notability
Thanks very much for reviewing one of my first page creations yesterday (Terence Cave, which I simply translated from a German article). As well as modifying some existing pages I've also added a couple of additional new pages, and a Wikipedia user pointed out that one of them, a full professor in London, J. P. E. Harper-Scott, might not count as notable because there were no secondary sources. I'm still very new to being an editor, and learning fast, so I added a few sources and was told the sources looked good but that they still might not qualify as indicating notability. I guess it's a judgement thing. I'm keen to get started in the right spirit, so I wondered whether you might be able to look at/review the page to see if it looks like the right sort of thing to you, since you clearly have a lot of experience here. If not, I'll stick to translating existing pages for now. Thanks for your time. Constituent12 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no question that Harper-Scott is notable. Our policy on academics is quite cleat at WP:PROf, and it is altogether separate from the WP:GNG. Secondary sources to show notability are not necessary in the sense they are in the GNG: any of the accomplishments mehntioned in WP:PROF is sufficient proof-- not just indication, not just presumption, not just evidence, but proof. In this case the two key factorsaretheeditorship and his being an authority in his field. That last point is sometimes debatable, but for people whose main academic work is books, books y major academci publishers are sufficient.


 * But I have some questions: 1: what is the exact publication data for his books--in the usual academci format--reference it by their worldcat entries. 2.what are the exact references for   Begbie (2012): p. 202, ^ Beard and Gloag (2016): 211, ^ Kramer (2016): p. 3, ^ Hicks (2014): p. 41?   If you wrote the in this form, they were probably copied from somewhere, and the wording of the paragraph on his work they cite indicates that it too may have been taken from another source. If that's the case, the paragraph must be rewritten.    3. The article needs the facts of his professional and personal life: birthdate and place, schooling and successive degrees (with place and date), successive academic jobs (with place and dates)


 * There are a few people here who insist on denying the consensus on academics, but it is avery firm consensus, holding for at least ten years now. Don't let them bother you--if any actually list an article for deletion, let me know,and I will try to deal with it--as I have with tens of thousands of other such articles (which does include, of course, getting removed the 10% of the ones submitted that are in fact not notable)  DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for this explanation, and for your support. It's useful to have that list of notability criteria for academics, for future page creations. I've tried to answer your questions in a revision of the page. I've now given full bibliographic information for his books, and done the same for the references I cited to satisfy the original request for notability. I've also rewritten that paragraph so that there's less quoted text, and more of a plain description of what the cited texts say. Just a couple of quotations are left, but all four citations remain. The only place I could find the personal and professional details you suggested was on his own webpage, but there are no dates I can find. Is that acceptable as a source for such things or should I delete it?


 * If this page now looks OK, I can move on to doing others, and will understand much better as a result of your feedback what to do with them!Constituent12 (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There's always a date and for a PhD thesis for any recent PhD--they are entered in WorldCat. I added it . The only thing needed now is the page numbers for the discussions of his work in the secondary references.  DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added the page ranges for those secondary sources in the bibliography, and the specific pages with the quotations are in the individual references. Thanks again! Constituent12 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest - of a different kind
There is a strictly informal discussion here. It's not an RfC. Just a call for feedback. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thank you for looking out for people, not the software.

Bearian (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC) 
 * Seconded; we need more leaders like you who prioritize community, healthy and functional process, and integrity. Here's a basket of bedding for your new goat. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Still could use your expertise on St. Vincent revert
Copying a message I tried to send on St. Vincent talk page:


 * == A Little Help from my Friends @WikimediaNYC ==


 * Hey User:DGG, Thanks for continuing to offer your help as a senior contributor to WP. I have not been diligent about rewriting my significant edit here. Here was the last difference between my edit and the revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._Vincent_(musician)&diff=prev&oldid=762490952


 * Any suggestions for tactics in my expository writing style or my persuasive writing in negotiation with admins would be appreciated. sheridanford (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

sheridanford (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * this will need a relatively complicated response. It will take me a day or two.  DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles like this one...
Brain Power Incorporated...are what raise questions for me. The cited medical sources verify the eye diseases etc., and mention the company as one of the available places to purchase the necessary optics. The article is supposed to be about the company, but the sources used to cite the company are. My questions arise because the company does have several patents but there are no sources that focus on the company itself which makes it appear to be a promotion on the surface. The article creator appears to be connected. The article is in the NPP feed which is how I came across it. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Atsme 📞📧 02:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also interesting/related is Herbert Wertheim which I see no mention of at the noticeboard archives, but has an unanswered IP user complaint on the talk page... — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also a talkpage watcher ... did you read WP:PATENTS which states "Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses" and aren't usually of any consequence for demonstrating notability (though sometimes raised, in futility, at AfD). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Since FIU named a college for Wertheim, he's notable. I'm not sure of the company--AfD would be appropriate. The articles were obviously written with COI, and what the article of Wertheim  mainly need is rewriting. I'll do it. It is sometimes interesting to see if anyone shows up to reinsert the material.  DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Terra Holdings
It seems most people at the AfD wanted this page - so here it is: Terra Holdings. It needs help with referencing. I have two, but not good ones. I am thinking of tagging the page myself even though I created it :>) :>)

I guess someone had to fall on the sword :>) :>)

We might need a discussion touting its notability on the talk page or something like that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a very brief note on the talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

August 30: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Assistance with the Transition Design page you deleted several months ago
Mr. Goodman, I'm a professor and Head of the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University and a new user on Wikipedia, so please pardon any breaches in protocol. I am writing to ask for advice regarding the Transition Design page you deleted several months ago. I believe you were in correspondence with one of my faculty members who made the original post. I believe one of your primary objections was that Transition Design appeared to be a single PhD strand at a single University. Before we were able to follow your recommendations regarding the post, the page was taken down. We would now like to see it reinstated but have a question. We would like to edit the original page so that the history is not lost, rather than start from scratch with a new page. Is this acceptable? Since the original page was posted, Transition Design has been adopted by several institutions, including RMIT and UNSW in Australia, The University of Trondheim, Norway, EINA University, Barcelona, University of Palermo, Buenos Aires, Schumacher College/Plymouth University, UK, as well as Carnegie Mellon University. We are in discussions currently with Aalto University, Finland and Monterrey Tech University in Mexico. These programs are teaching and/or creating research strands on the topic. There have been 3 Transition Design Symposia: 2015 at CMU; 2016 at Schumacher College/Dartington; 2017 at EINA University, Barcelona. A symposium is planned for 2018 at Schumacher College/Dartington. Outside of CMU, two short courses in Transition Design have been held: 2016, Schumacher College (attended by 30 people from 7 countries) and 2017, The University of the Belearic Islands, Majorca (24 people from 8 countries). Carnegie Mellon University is currently working with the city of Ojai, CA to frame their water shortage as a Transition Design problem. The city is currently fundraising to open a Transition Design office downtown. I was recently contacted by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta requesting more information on Transition Design. I provide this update to address your concern that Transition Design is a single PhD program at Carnegie Mellon University. I frequently get requests from educators who are interested in integrating it into curricula and research strands and because of the growing global interest we feel that it is important to have a presence on Wikipedia once again. We are happy to follow the earlier suggestions you made and I have recently noticed that another area of design focus, Interaction Design has a "clean" page with no alerts on it, so we can easily use that as a guide. What we are not clear about is how to recreate the page, given that it was previously deleted. Can you please advise? Terry Irwin (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Terry Irwin
 * As for protocol: I listed it for a deletion discussion in Nov 2016, but it was discussed by whoever was interested (which seemed to be only a few people--more participation would have been desirable, but that's typical of many of our discussions), and another administrator,  judged the consensus view was to delete, and made the deletion. It would be possible to move the material into draft space, but he is the person to ask. I'd have no objection.
 * As you appear to realize, there is a difference between the style of academic writing and the style appropriate for WP. The reasons I gave for suggesting deletion were not just that nobody had adopted it, but that the text was a "jargon-filled over-wordy formulation" of what seemed rather common ideas, that one should design to accommodate changes, and that changes from here on in will be pretty drastic.  We expect articles on this sort of subject to have jargon but the intensity and repetitiveness of this were exceptional  even for the soft social sciences. Further, the text was entirely about the Carnegie program, mentioning names of a large number of people connected with it. It was written in a way not to neutrally describe the program but to advocate for its importance giving references to a large number of well-known figures in related fields with arguably similar ideas, mentioning only their books, without specific page references to show the connection--we call this name-dropping. And there was not a single mention of any specific directly-attributable well-known application.
 * I've looked for papers and books about the subject--at least those using the phrase . There are only a very few cited papers in Google Scholar using it in the sense applicable here; the most cited paper is "Transition design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study, and research by T Irwin in  Design and Culture, 2015, and it is cited only 16 times, mostly by people in the same group. There does not appear any book listed in WorldCat. I've looked at the relevant web sites for the other programs you have mentioned, and at all of them, there is at most a statement of proposed work, or an announcement of an initial faculty position.  We would normally describe a situation like this as "not yet notable".
 * Interaction Design is indeed a better article. That's because it has been revised by many people over many years. It still needs improvements--everything here does. I'lll try to o some there--and also because its a very well established concept.


 * You may be a little surprised at this criticism. But I've decades of experience in the academic world, and I've seen this sort of writing all my career--both in style, and in making embryonic programs look substantial. I've done it myself to some extent, but to be frank I would be ashamed of doing this, just as I would be of the websites of some of the programs.
 * We have a general policy about WP:Conflict of Interest: people closely connected with a subject are the worst people to write a WP article about it. It is much too difficult maintaining a truly WP:Neutral point of view for a subject to which one is professionally committed. Some people can manage it, but in our experience it's rather rare.  Consequently, we require that such articles be written in Draft space, where they can be checked before being put as an article. Nor in our experience are publicity staff for an organization suitable people--they are basically committed to their client's viewpoint--and tend to be accustomed to including as much puffery as they can manage.
 * The only truly correct way to have an article on your concept, is to wait until it becomes well-known enough for someone not connected with it to be interested in writing an article. Anything else is basically writing for publicity, not for an encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I hope it's okay to respond here on your talk page, . you are welcome to contact me on my talk page and set up an informal/over lunch meeting at Pitt or Carnegie Mellon and I will be happy to talk about contributing to Wikipedia. I work with Pitt and Wikipedia to integrate library and archives into Wikipedia and I may be able to help. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)  ✐   ✉  22:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Transition Design
It would seem then that Transition Design is ineligible as an entry in Wikipedia. Can you please provide for us the criteria you are using for the number of citations needed from what source in order to qualify. We can find no such criteria. Our papers on Academia have been viewed over 22,000 times, which I realize is different than Google Scholar, but I assure you there is international interest. We have had dozens of people contacting us asking for the page to go back up. I will let them know that it does not meet your criteria. Terry Irwin (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Terry Irwin
 * I can understand your confusion. It sounds like none of your personnel are natives to Wikipedia, hence your ignorance of the subject. All entries in Wikipedia are expected to meet notability criteria. Because I can't see the deleted page I can only assume your focus was parroting the paper you published. If the paper isn't generally notable then there's almost no reason for inclusion. After all, Wikipedia is not a web host. As DGG states, had the paper been cited thousands of times some editors might consider it notable although that's a bit of a stretch, to my mind. Academia.edu is not a qualifier for notability just as the number of mentions on Google is also not a valid metric. I think we could have a conversation about which subjects you touch on that you could write about. Rest assured, no amount of international interest or embarrassment you're encountering is a reason we should have an article about your project. There is a very common misconception of our standards because most new editors look to other articles to guesstimate what is allowed. Sadly, this is a problem because we have far too many editors writing insufficient articles, only a fraction of which we've been able to clean up or delete because our dedicated user base is so small compared to the number of English-speakers online. We also don't want to encourage a race to the bottom. I hope you and your team will engage with our Wikipedians in Pittsburgh along with those online. Wikipedia has a learning curve and those outside our community are really disadvantaged when they seek publicity for what they think is a big deal. The Wiki Education Foundation has also been established specifically to work with college classes editing Wikipedia and they have resources to help guide these efforts. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

followup (X2 and G13)
I just became aware of G13 and am wondering if there is a more effective way to give input to these nuke from orbit proposals than to complain about them after the RfC is closed. Is there some page I should be watching? I am still trying to catch up with the translation and X2 issues I promised to work on so I don't want to invest too much time on this. But. Although nobody has inappropriately deleted anything of mine yet, I do have pages I work on off and on for more than six months. I thinnk it is inappropriate to tell other editors how they "should" be working. You offered once to nominate me as an administrator; this might help a bit with some of the other stuff I'm doing like vandalism rollbacks, but would it get me to these discussions before a decision has already been made? What do you think? Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Changes to WP:PROF
Hi DGG,

I'm planning on drafting a modified version of WP:PROF and putting it before the community via RfC.

As this is an area of your expertise I thought I'd just give you a heads-up before I start.

Thanks,

 Dr Strauss   talk   08:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * now at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). A proposed step backwards, towards increased systematic bias and uncertainty.  DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)