User talk:DGG/Archive 129 Oct. 2017

Grants application
A grant has been applied for to develop a solution that may or may not assist in the way new pages are controlled. The community is invited to comment on the request at meta. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking
Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Bittencourt
I think that this comment of yours on a user page was instead intended for the corresponding talk page. However, I suggest that you skimread the depths of this user talk page before moving it there. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think he was trying to make a good faith effort to contribute. Though we of course do not like autobios, they are not prohibited, and his was very close to appropriate;  Google Scholar shows him highly notable, both for the papers and the major textbook.  The block seems an   over-reaction to a new ed. who makes mistakes,  and whose initial effort was given an altogether incorrect AFC review.  I will just write the article myself based on the official CV  etc   DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about references
Hi, DGG - with regards to a list of monuments and memorials, I have a few questions: Thanks in advance, Atsme 📞📧 05:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Statues: how does one verify whether or not a statue was created in honor of someone for a single notable event, or for their life's history or for service to their country, etc.? I realize the plaques should provide details of the memoriam but what if there's just a name? Is there a way to look up the dedication and if so, what references would one look up? Example: A statue of Sam Houston in the Statutory Hall in Austin, TX. The memorial honoring his birthplace says noted soldier and statesman, so would it be appropriate to use that memorial in an article titled Monuments and Memorials of the Battle of San Jacinto?
 * 2) Naval ships: when a ship is christened and named in honor of a notable person, is there a reference to look up the reason the ship was named in that person's honor - such as a heroic deed, or a long career, etc.?
 * 3) If a plaque, statue, national park, battleship, street, etc. is named after a notable person, shouldn't that memorial only be included in whatever WP list corresponds to the honor? For example, a memorial was constructed and named in honor of an Admiral who served courageously for 45 years in the US Navy. That memorial would properly be included in List of US Navy Admirals. But what if he also served 4 years in the Foreign Legion and no memorial was created in honor of his service there. Should that same memorial be included in Lists of Monuments and Memorials of the French Foreign Legion?
 * 4) What if there is no plaque or other identifying feature on a statue that defines the honor and gives only the person's name - is there a way to look up why the statue memorialized him?
 * 5) Would it be considered WP:OR to include a statue in a list article for a specific cause without verifying the honor was actually for that cause?
 * 6) Should the statues, ships, memorials, monuments, etc. be cited to a RS to verify that it belongs in the respective list?

You were right
Your comments regarding paid editing are quite interesting - especially since I am applying for a WMF grant to fund a Wikimedian in Residence at Pitt. On the project grant page, an editor told me that I was asking for funding so that I would be be a 'paid' editor. I am still trying to figure out this point of view. I can see that creating content related to the University may be considered paid editing, but is creating content on user pages, talk pages, template pages, category pages and topics unrelated to the University considered paid editing? Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  18:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  18:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * it's a special form of paid editing which we usually consider benign,and is exempt from the usual rules unless it's abused. It can be abused--for example, by making references only or predominantly to university sources for material which is not unique there. There is no reason not to declare it as if it were ordinary paid editing, on both the article talk p and on your user p. Doing so has no down side. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Help with submission declined
Thanks very much for taking a look at my declined article on John McCaskill.

Thanks especially for your comment on notability. McCaskill does indeed straddle the boundary between "notable" and "famous". That is why the original comment of &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;, "Fails the notability test." seemed a little off base. I will heed your comments as well as those of &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  as I try to edit a new version.

Nhpackard (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)nhpackard
 * . Famous usually means something like a Nobel prize, enough that people who aren't biologists at all will recognize the name.  DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

MacSpeech
The article MacSpeech that you deleted per G11 has been around for at least ten years (I think) so it seems unlikely that immediate deletion without discussion was necessary or appropriate. The company doesn't even exist anymore (I think), so promotion should not really be an issue anyway. Can you reconsider? I think any problems with the article could be better addressed by editing rather than by speedy deletion. Peacock (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I was a little surprised myself to see it recommended for deletion -- I well know its importance, and the first screen of the article seemed straightforward. But scrolling down, most of it was a promotional notice about their takeover by another firm, in incredible irrelevant detail. But youare right, and I've restored it and remove the junk.  DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Peacock (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought my talk page was long
Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  00:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for guidance
Dear DGG, Greetings! This is first time I am directly interacting with you on your talk page. I should have done this way back. But even this is not much late I guess. I am of course at pain to see articles created my me getting deleted, however, I am happy from other side that they are getting deleted with some reason and if I can understand the reason behind it, I can reach to the root of the problem. The problem must be somewhere in my certain beliefs and understandings of WP. I had learned some things like referencing from AshLin around 2011-2012, but as suggested by him, it is time for me to relearn. It is a great privilege to directly able to communicate with an expert like you in library sciences. I am aware that though no one likes criticism but if it is necessary for a higher cause (and if it is constructive), it needs to be done. I welcome all your criticism because after seeing huge amount of work done by you, I am humbled and am able to understand that you are doing it to improve my behavior on WP. May I request you to kindly look again at my edits and share with me some things to keep in mind while editing WP? Kindly note that it is a genuine request and no sarcasm or other intention is involved in it. While I welcome the criticism, I would request to send it to me on my personal mail id if you agree. Thanks a lot for your time. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There have been some changes since 2011. As it affects your articles, the most important one is that we have become--as we should have much earlier--intolerant of anything resembling advertising or promotionalism. Five years ago,the general feeling was ,that it was enough to rewrite it. Now, with the greatly increased efforts by all sort of organizations--commercial and otherwise--to get a WP page, and with the growth of undeclared paid editing, some of it of a particularly dangerous variety--we are starting to no longer feel this way. So it is necessary to be very careful in making contributions in your field of interest that you do not in any way have them resemble what promotional editors write.
 * What this means in practice is that there most be excellent references that no one could possibly object to--not from the subject themselves, not mere mentions, not press releases. In this connection, many news sources that have formerly been considered reputable are now looked on much more skeptically. In regard to topics you write on, many of these sources that are now considered questionable are Indian newspapers. I and the rest of us have seen so much questionable material from these sources, that we now assume anything they print on a company, or a nonprofit, or a musical artist, or a film, is inspired by press agents, and in most cases copies the press release. (this is true as well of many of what we once considered reliable sources from elsewhere, such as the Huffington Post/) At present, the implications of this are that for many possibly substantial topics, there simply cannot be found sufficient truly reliable sources to use for justifying an article.
 * I think at this point those of your articles, that had problems have mostly been dealt with, or are being dealt with. Of the ones that you list which you plan to write, I have my doubts about some of them, but I do not want to judge before seeing them. (There's another problem with some of them--many could better be handled by expanding current articles. Many people find more satisfaction in making new articles, but the real growth of Wikipedia to its present very useful state, has been from the expansion of existing articles.
 * I hope this will be of some assistance.  DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Sir, I cannot tell you how happy I am feeling by directly communicating with you. You definitely posses more understanding about WP, its policies and about editing. I will surely take your guidance as there will be need. Till this time in my editing history, I have not met any one who takes pain to explain things in so much of detail. In this whole painful process, I am happy that I got to know a person like you, from whom I can request for guidance if I am stuck up somewhere or if I think that I will get stuck up in future about that particular thing. One thing I got to know while dealing with deletion process is - if there is deletion discussion, or deletion of an article, there is no point in fighting over it at that time. If the article is really notable, someone will propose it sooner or later and the process will take care of itself. Trying to defend a particular article much aggressively is not advised, I would say. Also there is no point in trying to recreate it by the same person again. I will read more of your work and your discussions to find more guidance and will consult you as needed. Thanks a lot once again for you time to explain things in so much detail. -- Dr.Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your approach is very realistic. Some of my first articles were deleted, and although they were in my area of professional expertise, I simply worked elsewhere. Just as you say, most of them were later recreated by others.  DGG ( talk ) 08:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Dirk Coetsee
Hello DGG Thank you for reviewing my article on Dirk Coetsee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dirk_Coetsee) and for your helpful suggestions. I have tried to implement all of the changes that you suggested, particularly editing the content accordingly. If you have a spare moment, could you please take a look, and if possible, could you please accept?

Thank you Philemon Matilda (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Philemon Matilda

Markdill
David, thank you for your considerate note giving me advice about my post on Tony Parella. I sincerely want to develop something that adheres to Wikipedia standards. I will take what you shared to heart and draft more standard content. I hope you are open to me alerting you when I submit the next version. Thanks again, especially for your understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdill (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Markdill October 9, 2017

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline
Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

2014 Dijon attack
Quite an odd reason to reject the PROD. Does the New York Times writing the same story as other news reports somehow negate my rationale? I would appreciate a more thorough response before I nominate the article for deletion. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The NYT is less likely to run aa story on something of transient interest than most other news sources. The world of sources is not neatly divided to reliable sources sand Non-relibable Sources. Sources have different degrees of reliability, depending on what they are being used for as well as their intrinsic characteristics.  DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
An interesting ticket:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 09:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Draft:Joseph Lau, MD
 * Draft:Raju K George

Parabanks Shopping Centre
Hi there! You recently expressed views on the AFD for Parabanks Shopping Centre that was closed with no consensus. I have renominated that article for deletion as someone who was not involved with the original AFD, and would like to invite you to express/re-express any views you may have. You can find the new AFD here  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Lau (doctor)
Hi DGG: Just a note that Joseph Lau (doctor), an article you accepted via AfC (diff), has been tagged (by another user) as potentially having a significant copyright violation. North America1000 09:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My error,of course. I obviously should have either deleted or rewritten much more thorly ,but the simplest thing noe id delete it snd I just did that. Apparently I was working too late at night. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow-up. North America1000 02:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Dirk Coetsee 2
Just a quick question relating to my earlier post(please see below) with the same subject: do I have to resubmit the draft article before you can accept it?

Thank you, Philemon Matilda (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Philemon Matilda

Hello DGG Thank you for reviewing my article on Dirk Coetsee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dirk_Coetsee) and for your helpful suggestions. I have tried to implement all of the changes that you suggested, particularly editing the content accordingly. If you have a spare moment, could you please take a look, and if possible, could you please accept?

Thank you Philemon Matilda (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Philemon Matilda
 * Ideally you should have resubmitted, because someone else could review it also---I don't have a monopoly over reviewing any particular article. However, the system is set up, so I can submit it  in your name, so I did that and accepted it.   DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert K. Dixon edits
Thank you for reviewing the Robert K. Dixon page and providing edits and constructive feedback. We will be addressing your comments and resubmitting a new draft that meets the guidelines. Thank you. Ch2017 Ch2017 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Question
I am reviewing the deletion of articles Sherurcij started, and I saw you closed Articles for deletion/Shawn Gibson.

The nominator claimed "There has been no significant coverage in years..."

Hmmm. Should it matter when significant coverage occurred? Geo Swan (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * whether an article is likely to be expandable is relevant to the decision whether to keep it as a separate article, or to merge it. In this case, I agree with the decision to merge, because he is relatively peripheral to the article on the victim. We tend to focus on victims, not perpetrators, especially when the perpetrator has not  been convicted of  a crime. If her should ever be arrested and tried and covicted, the article can be expanded. ` DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Michael Anissomov
Hi, what was unambiguously spammy about the Michael Anissomov article? Some assertion of importance/notability is required for any bio to remain on Wikipedia. Thanks, Smooth alligator (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The requirements for a article to be in WP are given at WP:BOT, which is the basic policy. Among the specifics are NO INDISCRIMINATE, which is the basis of our requirement to have notability, and NOTADVERTISING, which we interpret as not being exclusively devoted to establishing a  position or opinion, as well as commercial advertising.  You listed it for deletion as not indicating any significance. There may not be sufficient notability to pass a deletion discussion,  but he was indicated to have written a book. Since the article was entirely devoted to promoting his views, I considered that NOT PROMOTIONAL was closer; once an article is listed for speedy deletion, an admin can delete it for any of the accepted reasons for speedy at WP:CSD. If the article were brought to a deletion discussion, it would undoubtedly be deleted on both grounds of notability and promotionalism, so I consider it an uncontroversial deletion.  Ifanyone wants to try again, they can use WP:AFC.  DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was User:Reddogsix who listed it as an A7 CSD. I don't consider the article to have been promoting his views as much as documenting them, probably with enough reliable sources to meet the GNG. He and his work are often mentioned in articles like this Buzzfeed piece about neoreaction, since as the deleted article noted, he cornered the market on the intersection between neoreaction and transhumanism. Smooth alligator (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * the source you give has three sentence about him in a long article which is mainly about other people.  That's exactly what  is meant by non-substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether the coverage is substantial isn't relevant to WP:CSD, though (or is it?) Smooth alligator (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * not by itself, but promotionalism is.  DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Michael Anissimov
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michael Anissimov. 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. Smooth alligator (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * not worth arguing about a challenged speedy, so I've sent it to AfD, at Articles for deletion/Michael Anissimov (2nd nomination)  DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Request on 19:32:53, 16 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Byrd.gyrl
Hi there. Thanks for reviewing. This is quite discouraging as I am newbie at this and need to get the article published as this is in reference to a public figure who formally represents a region of the country appointed by the government. Is there someone who writes these articles professionally that I can contract to do this for me so it can be published? Thanks! Byrd.gyrl (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Byrd.gyrl (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * But let me ask you, why do you "need" an article? The only reason a person would need an article is in order to promote themselves or their activities--and that sort of promotion is not permitted in WP; it s a violation of our basic policy WP:NOTADVERTISING.  I see nothing in the existing draft to indicate that the person isa major government official whp would generally be considered appropriate for an article.
 * I must also alert you that there are people who write articles in what they claim to be a professional manner, but almost all of them do not follow our terms of use because they do not disclose their conflict of interest, and most of them are in reality incapable of writing an acceptable non-promotional article. Either reason alone would be sufficient cause for  the articles they submit to be immediately deleted as soon as they can be identified--we delete dozens of such articles every day.  If you use such a service you need to determine that actually follow our terms of use.  Any service that claims special access or permission or administrator assistance is not following our rules, because no administrator or person with special permissions is permitted to use those facilities for paid work at WP. And as if this were not bad enough, be aware that some services have the despicable practice of accepting payment and writing the article, but will then challenge the article using another name, and ask additional payment for defending it. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 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 5 – 17 October 2017

 

Editorial: Annotations
Annotation is nothing new. The glossators of medieval Europe annotated between the lines, or in the margins of legal manuscripts of texts going back to Roman times, and created a new discipline. In the form of web annotation, the idea is back, with texts being marked up inline, or with a stand-off system. Where could it lead? ContentMine operates in the field of text and data mining (TDM), where annotation, simply put, can add value to mined text. It now sees annotation as a possible advance in semi-automation, the use of human judgement assisted by bot editing, which now plays a large part in Wikidata tools. While a human judgement call of yes/no, on the addition of a statement to Wikidata, is usually taken as decisive, it need not be. The human assent may be passed into an annotation system, and stored: this idea is standard on Wikisource, for example, where text is considered "validated" only when two different accounts have stated that the proof-reading is correct. A typical application would be to require more than one person to agree that what is said in the reference translates correctly into the formal Wikidata statement. Rejections are also potentially useful to record, for machine learning.

As a contribution to data integrity on Wikidata, annotation has much to offer. Some "hard cases" on importing data are much more difficult than average. There are for example biographical puzzles: whether person A in one context is really identical with person B, of the same name, in another context. In science, clinical medicine require special attention to sourcing (WP:MEDRS), and is challenging in terms of connecting findings with the methodology employed. Currently decisions in areas such as these, on Wikipedia and Wikidata, are often made ad hoc. In particular there may be no audit trail for those who want to check what is decided.

Annotations are subject to a World Wide Web Consortium standard, and behind the terminology constitute a simple JSON data structure. What WikiFactMine proposes to do with them is to implement the MEDRS guideline, as a formal algorithm, on bibliographical and methodological data. The structure will integrate with those inputs the human decisions on the interpretation of scientific papers that underlie claims on Wikidata. What is added to Wikidata will therefore be supported by a transparent and rigorous system that documents decisions.

An example of the possible future scope of annotation, for medical content, is in the first link below. That sort of detailed abstract of a publication can be a target for TDM, adds great value, and could be presented in machine-readable form. You are invited to discuss the detailed proposal on Wikidata, via its talk page.

Links

 * Jon Udell, blogpost Annotating to extract findings from scientific papers, 15 December 2015
 * TDM and Libraries, Virginia Tech report
 * Magnus Manske, The Whelming: Scaling up Wikidata editing
 * OCLC and Internet Archive collaborate to expand library access to digital collections, metadata and linking exchange
 * GLOW week in November: Wikidata workshops on politician info

}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * }

Draft: Arthur "Waring" Bowen
Thank you for your helpful comments. I have revised the article according to your suggestions, modelling the entry on that of Scott Harrison another charity founder. I've also added comments to my user page as requested clarifying my relationship to Arthur Bowen and my motivations for submitting the article. Please would you re-review the article as you stated you would in your comment. Many thanks, Jon Bowen Jonbowenelsfield (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Zeeshan khan (cricketer,born 1999
I see you declined the CSD and added a Prod due to the phrase 'first class cricketer', except I can see no evidence that he is in fact a first class cricketer? Paste Let’s have a chat. 08:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * the phrase 'first class cricketer' is an assertion of importance so the article is not eligible for CSD deletion. It is irrelevant whether it is sourced or even true. (watcher) Dysklyver  14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Do not think of it as a mere vague descriptive term, in which case I would not have considered it a sufficient assertion of importance. --see our article on First class cricket. I don't know all that much about cricket, but I know to check.   DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

TelenorBank
Hi, so my article on Telenor Bank was deleted for being promotional. However, it is based on factual and the bank is part of the Telenor Group worldwide (mentioned in the article as parent company). Also references to external publications have been cited for reliability. Kindly share what I can do to improve or restore the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.238.194 (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm rechecking. It'll take a day or two.  DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is basically a listing of various services, with unsourced claims to be first in many of them. The remaining content is a list of minor awards.It had no references at all,just a link to their website. If you want to try again, you will need substantial third party reliable sources. Please write it not in mainspace, but  using the WP:Article Wizard in Draft space.   I find it amazing that the article survived here since 2006.  DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sullivan on Comp draft rejected due to notability
Thanks for the feedback, DGG. I sent an e-mail to someone I know who works at the law firm that produces Sullivan on Comp and asked about the frequency it's cited in appellate decisions. I'll let you know if/when I hear back. I'd like your opinion if the citation frequency is significant enough to warrant resubmitting the article for approval. Thanks again for your help! Angsthead (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hugh Ned Brown article deletion
Dear DGG:

While looking at my stats I noticed that the article I created for Hugh Ned Brown on March 21, 2017 has been deleted by you through the PROD process. For some reason, I did not see any notification, so I wasn’t aware that notability was being questioned. This article is part of a project we are working on at IUPUI University Library to provide a presence in Wikipedia to notable people and organizations. I welcome your opinion as to why you don’t think this person is notable. Also, I would like to ask you if you could restore the page so that I can address the issue. Thanks,

Mlemusrojas (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm writing a reply--will post it tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * since it was only by PROD, the article can be restored as a matter of course, unless there's some other problem, and I have done that. But since anyone can nominate it for AFD before you have chance to improve it,  I''ve restored it to Draft space ss Draft:Hugh Ned Brown, which will give you 6 months to do that.  When you think you have done enough, you can send it for review, or just move it back yourself, or ask me--and  asking me to look at it there is I think the best course.
 * But my question was basically, for what specifically is he notable-- free lance PR consulting?  high school teaching?  authorship of the posters for Dow Chemicals   I see the text is derived from an appropriately licensed archival description. (I gather the archival text came first, and  the impression I have is that the text is much more suited for the archival purpose, emphasising the variety of his interest. Descriptions of that sort are intended to indicate all the possible approaches that someone might want to use the material.
 * I've said from time to time in discussions here, that being less than notable in several different things does not add up to notability. Many archives nowadays, and a few national biographical encyclopedias, try to provide material on representative average citizens. This is an excellent idea, for the research that can be done in later generations on what we think of as unremarkable ordinary people can be both important and fascinating. I remember many years encouraging the then fledgling Alexander Street Press to pursue its project on Womens Diaries of the Westward Journey--and am very glad to see how valuable and widely used it has become. But I do not think an encyclopedia is the place for this. (At least, I do not think it has been the place--what the future might consider might be very different.)
 * The best course is to see what you can find actually published about him. Some of it should be in the collection, and should be cited specifically, not indirectly just indirectly through the finding aid. Unpublished material in the collection if digitized and available outside the physical collection can  be used as a source, but if it is just described but not reproduced, and you'd have to go there to see it, our practice is that it can't be used as a source, though it can be mentioned.
 * I also have some more general concerns about all the material prepared through the program. The summaries have a personal author, and this is  usually specified, and that needs to be given.
 * Technically, the summary by a professional archivist is a reliable source according to our rules, but much of the material is in most cases also referenceable from other sources, which presumably the archivist used. They really need to be given also. We want the reader to be able to find the published material as directly as possible.
 * I'll be glad to discuss the project with you on or offline. But my advice to anyone working with this sort of biographical material or on a new project has always been to start with the most clearly notable people, not everybody.  DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

deletion
Hi

I think you have deleted the page Business Centre Association - could you give me more information as to why and how to fix this?

Thank you! Annacarroll (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You accepted the draft and DGG deleted it for being unambiguous advertising. Please explain for Annacarroll what you saw. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 08:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , the draft was essentially a press release fo the association. "The BCA is the only trade association representing the flexible space sector in the UK" has what looks like a reliable source, but is actually a non-independent submission by the association itself to a Parliamentary committee. Alist of conference speakers is not appropriate encyclopedic content. The rest of the article outlines their lobbying positions. The references are references to its own lobbying--mostly PR. I am not the only editor who has had problems with this article. I note you are a PR agent working on behalf of the company.  I'm glad you declared, but in practice it is very difficult for people with PR training to write in any style except PR. DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

How do I resolve this? If there are other articles that are external would that suit? I'm not sure that I agree with the position that it reads as a press release, but what language would work better here given it is all objective? Annacarroll (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * you resolve this by not accepting a job to write a WP article when there are not adequate references.  DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In responding to why I accepted it, I would have to see the article itself to know for sure. With that being said I trust DGG's judgement enough that he likely caught something I missed or was tricked by. And thanks for the ping Chris. Sulfurboy (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Glen Loates
Please forgive me for asking, but I wonder if this edit was what you intended? as it has reinstated all the AFC comments on an article in user space. - Arjayay (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * fixed it . I was obviously working a little too much at a time, just as I tell otherundefined people not to do. Please feel free just to revert errors and tell me.  DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Opinion on my draft
Dear DGG, I casually read a talk by you on another user's talk page and I liked your approach. On your page I found similar opinions of people who trust your judgement. For that reason, I would love to ask you to check my draft for an artist team named "Nevercrew" that I resubmitted for the third time today Draft:NEVERCREW.

I'm really trying to make a good job with sources and I found many, both on web and printed (as books, magazines...). I could write more about this subject, but I think that I stopped right before risking to go in a personal vision, that with art is easily done. I really hope that you'll be able to check it and tell me what you think. Thank you, Robert twain (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * we have a clear standard for artists who do paintings--they have to have works in permanent collections of major museums, not just exhibited . That obviously does not work well in all forms, including this. A standard that does work for all artists, is major critical publications about them.  Again, some forms of art are more likely to have this in conventional places than others. The degree to which we accept non-conventional publications as sufficiently reliable for this is a matter of experience and judgment. It depends on their degree of editorial control, and there are thousands of archived discussions of specifics t WP:Reliable sources noticeboard  and at prior AfDs. Unfortunately, there is not necessarily any easy way of finding them.
 * As specific points: we do not usually consider the Huffington Post reliable for notability, as it has no editorial control. We never use a reference to a WP article as reliable, for we have no editorial control. What you need to do instead is link to it. For printed sources, we need to know the extent of the discussion--you give page numbers for some, but you need them for all. A listing in a guide is not usually considered sufficiently substnatial to show notability. And you really should give a direct sourcefor every individual exhibition--not a an internal link, but as a reference.
 * My impression is that it has enough sourcing to go into mainspace, but in its current state the result of an AfD is unpredictable. So do what you can with this, and let me know, and I'll look again.  DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

NewLaw Solicitors and Helen Molyneux
I came across these two very promotional articles that need to be nominated for Afd. If you look at the earlier versions before I took the chainsaw to them, they are obviously paid promotional editing. I'm an IP and cannot complete the Afd nom process, so if you could nom them it would be great.96.127.242.251 (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Moyneux is notable because of the honorary doctorate. I am therfore reluctant to nominate it. I placed a speedy on her firm.  DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Honorary doctorates for lawyers and business people are often an entreaty to a donation, in my experience. I remember particpating in one degree ceremony and the awardee, a friend of mine, said "they just asked me indirectly for money in the car on the way over here." UNSW also gave out a whopping 16 honorary doctorates that year, which is pretty loose. Harvard only gave out ten. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, look at the fifth one on this list. Doesn't encourage prestige when that happens.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello. Thank you for your response in Teahouse. Unfortunately, you did not answer my questions. As such I have removed your response from my query in hopes that someone else may be able to assist me.

Kind regards KaiRAWR (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback
01:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

ONYC Hair
Per my check the subject is notable, and the deleted administrator said the reason for speedy deletion is because the article has been deleted before, per my check i wasn't the one that wrote the article in 2015, i believe overtime articles should be improved and if there's any issue with an article it should be stated on creating admin's talk page or article talk page considering the stress one has to go through finding sources and an writing an article from a neutral point of view while avoiding Tabloid Journalism, for this reason the deleting administrator's point doesn't seem valid, per Neutral point of view the article should be allowed for more improvements in this case.
 * there is no indication of notability, either previously or now. If you want to try an article, use theWP:Article Wizard and write it in Draft space.  DGG ( talk ) 07:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for ONYC Hair
An editor has asked for a deletion review of ONYC Hair. 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. Is Nutin 07:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Soothe
Draft:Soothe appears ready for acceptance. Can you please remove create protection so I can accept this? ~Kvng (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected as requested, but I will nonetheless consider  sending to AfD to let the community decide.   DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Draft:Tarek Omar Souryal

Length of your talk page
Hi DGG, I watch your talkpage, like many people probably do, and your comments are generally useful, worth reading etc. Your talk page is way too long, it is approaching a kilobyte and is close to being Wikipedias longest article! (it would be ranked 3rd right now at 953,903 bytes). This makes it hard to load, impossible to deal with on a mobile device, and generally bugged if using someone was (like me much of the time) using a crappy computer. You have archives, but I don't really know your system for archiving, could you please please consider keeping it under 150,000 bytes? Dysklyver 14:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , on the bright side, congratulations on having the 3rd longest article on Wikipedia. Would you mind if I do a WP:DYK on some of the entries... Did you know etc. etc? :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hallo David, I'd like to support Dysklyver's plea: I often catch up on my watchlist on a rather low-tech phone and simply scrolling down your table of contents to see the gems of discussion is RSI-inducing! I'm sure a lot of people would welcome it if you could adopt some slightly different archiving philosophy. Thanks. Pam  D  20:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Pratt MacDowell Fellowship
Hi David, this is about application of WP:NPROF which is in your wheelhouse. I'm working on the bio of a Northwest filmmaker who was awarded a Pratt MacDowell Fellowship, also called a MacDowell Colony Fellowship. I don't believe this is a postdoc fellowship so it alone would satisfy NPROF. Do you concur? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * not necessarily by itself, though it should always be included in the article.  But I may be wrong. It's not the field of WP:PROF I know best.


 * From its website  "Emerging and established artists are encouraged to apply."  " 300 artists arrive each year; of these about half are new and half have been to the Colony before. "  "Artists may request residencies of up to eight weeks; the average stay is five weeks. "; 'Applicants who are enrolled in undergraduate or graduate degree programs as of the date of application are ineligible for a residency and therefore cannot apply. Doctoral candidates who have finished all coursework may apply." and "More than 7,900 artists have been awarded Fellowships "  taken together with " MacDowell Colony Fellows have won 83 Pulitzer Prizes, 800 Guggenheim Fellowships, 101 Rome Prizes, 30 National Book Awards, 26 Tony Awards, 28 MacArthur Fellowships, 9 Grammys, 8 Oscars, and 8 National Medals for the Arts" implies 85% have won none of these.  I will add this information to the article.
 * It's a summer program, not a year-round program; it usually has no monetary stipend. I do not think it's the sort of an honor intended by WP:PROF, b   There is a complete list at    The most recent year is at    . A more exact determination would take an analysis of this. I would be reluctant to trust bald third party statements of its excellence not accompanied by an analysis.

I will look at the specific article.  DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for the research. I think the person winning an Emmy is good enough for notability, but have been challenged with female BLPs twice before, so am being extra careful. The draft is at User:Bri/Lana Wilson if you want to have a look, or of course you are welcome to add to it. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Length of your talk page
Hi DGG, I watch your talkpage, like many people probably do, and your comments are generally useful, worth reading etc. Your talk page is way too long, it is approaching a kilobyte and is close to being Wikipedias longest article! (it would be ranked 3rd right now at 953,903 bytes). This makes it hard to load, impossible to deal with on a mobile device, and generally bugged if using someone was (like me much of the time) using a crappy computer. You have archives, but I don't really know your system for archiving, could you please please consider keeping it under 150,000 bytes? Dysklyver 14:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , on the bright side, congratulations on having the 3rd longest article on Wikipedia. Would you mind if I do a WP:DYK on some of the entries... Did you know etc. etc? :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hallo David, I'd like to support Dysklyver's plea: I often catch up on my watchlist on a rather low-tech phone and simply scrolling down your table of contents to see the gems of discussion is RSI-inducing! I'm sure a lot of people would welcome it if you could adopt some slightly different archiving philosophy. Thanks. Pam  D  20:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

stil inprocess  DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Pratt MacDowell Fellowship
Hi David, this is about application of WP:NPROF which is in your wheelhouse. I'm working on the bio of a Northwest filmmaker who was awarded a Pratt MacDowell Fellowship, also called a MacDowell Colony Fellowship. I don't believe this is a postdoc fellowship so it alone would satisfy NPROF. Do you concur? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * not necessarily by itself, though it should always be included in the article.  But I may be wrong. It's not the field of WP:PROF I know best.


 * From its website  "Emerging and established artists are encouraged to apply."  " 300 artists arrive each year; of these about half are new and half have been to the Colony before. "  "Artists may request residencies of up to eight weeks; the average stay is five weeks. "; 'Applicants who are enrolled in undergraduate or graduate degree programs as of the date of application are ineligible for a residency and therefore cannot apply. Doctoral candidates who have finished all coursework may apply." and "More than 7,900 artists have been awarded Fellowships "  taken together with " MacDowell Colony Fellows have won 83 Pulitzer Prizes, 800 Guggenheim Fellowships, 101 Rome Prizes, 30 National Book Awards, 26 Tony Awards, 28 MacArthur Fellowships, 9 Grammys, 8 Oscars, and 8 National Medals for the Arts" implies 85% have won none of these.  I will add this information to the article.
 * It's a summer program, not a year-round program; it usually has no monetary stipend. I do not think it's the sort of an honor intended by WP:PROF, b   There is a complete list at    The most recent year is at    . A more exact determination would take an analysis of this. I would be reluctant to trust bald third party statements of its excellence not accompanied by an analysis.

I will look at the specific article.  DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for the research. I think the person winning an Emmy is good enough for notability, but have been challenged with female BLPs twice before, so am being extra careful. The draft is at User:Bri/Lana Wilson if you want to have a look, or of course you are welcome to add to it. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Manipulating the media
This looks like "churnalism" on steroids. It shows what can be done if ethics are thrown out the window. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't seem as ethically challenged, but this type of behavior does cut out the traditional news organizations ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PR industry disregard of ethics originated long before contemporary social media, and it was just as pervasive and even more harmful than in previous generations and centuries. What modern media provides is the greater opportunity for ordinary people to counter it, which is one of the reason for the existence of Wikipedia. We need to ensure the opportunity is not lost by our customary indifference to the actual quality of sources.
 * as a practical warning, it illustrates the utter unreliability of Business Insider and the borderline reliability of TechCrunch.  DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

About the speedy deletion of the Franklin Azzi english page
Hello, First of all, sorry for my response time, I haven't been active on WP lately and just found your message. I know the page has been nominated for speedy deletion, as it is presenting a lot of flaws concerning advertising WP policies. However, I truly believe, looking through the recent deletion discussions for other architects, that this page can be improved, rather than deleted. I may have failed, so far, in producing a fully encyclopedic page : yet, this architect gained a significant recognition in the past couple of years, with a lot of international and consequent projects; with his nomination in september to rebuild one of the most famous buildings in Paris, the Tour Montparnasse, I figured this was the rightful moment for him to have a page on the english WP, and not just the french one.

Specially with the guidelines for improvement that you gave me, I would like to try and rewrite it, according to the WP standards and methods. I am quite new on Wikipedia, and specially on the English one: but this risk of deletion could help me learn once and for all the standards of the english WP!

Finally, I have two very small questions about the advice you gave me : - for the books listed, the names of the authors and editors are already included : I referenced them, as well as the ISBN code, the date, etc, through the Reference Tooltips, at the end, just like in the french page, in order to make the list more readable. Should I include them directly in the Publications category? - As for the Prize he obtained, it is indeed a "young architect" prize; but it is, in France, reknown as a very prestigious award, and a way for the Ministry of Culture to "bet" on someone to become a reknown architect in the following years. As he obtained it nearly ten years ago, I figured it was relevant to mention it, underlining that he "used to be" a young architect.

Could I ask you to verify the page once I have entirely rewritten it, and tell me if it still deserves a complete deletion?

Thank you so much for your time and patience, comment by User:Ysevauchez

. I'm quite impressed by the improvements you have already made.

The main easily fixable problems at the moment are copyediting and formatting. Some of the phrases are not idiomatic English or are specialized terms not easily understood. and the illustrations have to be either aligned in a reasonable way, or grouped as an WP:Image gallery. (The frWP page also needs the illustrations grouped). In addition, any sentence making a judgment must be sourced to a specific reference. The other significant problem which will be more difficult, is that you should try to find a third party reference for every building,rather than rely on his web site only, or the website of the organization involved.

As relatively minor problems, many of the details of referencing are different in the fr and en WP--we normally would add the full publication information to the bibliography. We also usually give books more fully in the bibliography. We also reduce full capitals to ordinary sentence capitalization in the references. And we spell outin fullall titles of periodicals.

Some of this will be easier for me to fix than you, but please give it a first pass.  DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tsalta Baptiste
CC The subject of the above deleted article asked me to bring his IMDb profile (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5789701/) to your attention and consider it in an attempt to get the deletion reviewed. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 19:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For your reference, IMDB is generally not considered a reliable source. See WP:IMDBREF. --Caorongjin (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The IMDb profile was included in "External links" rather than as a reference. Either way, I personally didn't think shoving the IMDb profile in your faces would help in any way but he insisted on doing it so here we are. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 21:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think this is your first article in this area. Ethical paid editing has a pre-requistie--understanding the rules of WP and the way we apply them. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I am not against deletion review, but before we waste time in what may not succeed you should first understand the rationale of the deletion is Notability and you bringing IMDb unreliable reference is clear NERROR and bound to fail attempt to create Notability where it exist not. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)