User talk:DGG/Archive 144 Jan. 2019

Help with article Draft:Susan Akbarpour
Hi DGG,

I saw that you recently deleted my draft of the Article "Susan Akbarpour". Thank you for your constructive comments. I have taken them into account in my latest round of editing. I removed PR Newswire as a source and shortened the article and links to be more in line with your other other comments.

I was hoping that you could take a look at it again and let me know if you think that it should be modified further. I'm a fairly new Wikipedian, so I'm still learning the ropes!

I would apprecciate any and all feedback. Here's the link to the article again for reference Draft:Susan Akbarpour

Thanks, Benperlmutter94 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don;t theink there's enough to show notability. The various ...business journals are only 1 step up from PRNewswire, &Huff Post 1 small step above them; an article in her grad school alumni magazine isn;' independent. As a paid writer for her company, you would probably do better by waiting until someone not connected with the firm considers here important enough to write an article. Paid editing is only acceptable when the person is unmistakably notable anyway and happens to be overlooked; when it's done for trying to insert an article for a person of borderline notability, it makes it even harder for there to be an article when she really does become notable, because the unsuccessful attempt will remain on record.  An unsuccessful  draft or article will get removed, but the fact that there was a unsuccessful draft or article does not get removed, and anyone who knows how to look can see that.  (The method anyone can use is to search the deletion log for the person's name, and also for the name preceded by "Draft:" --  Admins can also search directly for the name or the draft, and that there was a previously deleted draft or article will be visible, as will be the draft or article itself.)     DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Another potential AfD?
Hi! I noticed that you recently created an AfD discussion for Jack Wallington. I'm relatively new here, so don't know the general consensus, but these types of articles immediately bother me, and I was wondering whether you thought that Susanne Mueller Zantop fit the same criteria. Thanks! Jelleecat (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanne Mueller Zantop.  DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yes indeed! I've been working on these promotional bios for many years, and will be for many more. I go slowly, because I remain basically an inclusionist, and I attempt to see which of them bios are about someone actually important, and worth salvaging.  What makes it more difficult is that the originating editor sometimes is not even aware of the actual notable elements in the person's career. Sometimes I encounter someone associated with an enterprise which has a number of supporters here, or an attractive person with what appears to be a fan club--in such cases the article does not get deleted, and, much as I would like to follow them up and try again, there are always so many others to deal with. (And, conversely, sometimes there is a challenged bio on an actually notable person associated with some cause which is looked upon here unfavorably, and it is almost impossible to keep the article. Keep watching AfD and you will see the usual patterns, and which arguments are effective.  DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Solrad 1
Come back! I just massively updated it. :)

Also, can you tell me how to center text in a thumbnail (check out the Solrad image on that page). Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did some copyedits. You need more exact sources for each experimental result in the list than just the summary report. The Caption for the image is centered at the moment. If you want to add a longer caption, see WP:CAPTION. If you need to center it and it does not center automatically, the easiest way is to enclose the text within  .  In general, see WP:Image tutorial. I have little experience myself with images.  expert with them.  DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oswald Boelcke/GA1
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oswald Boelcke/GA1. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Driving to Geronimo's Grav
I don't understand your objection to pick me publishing and article about a collection of stories written by an author who has been working in the field over 40 years and has won numerous awards over his long career. Maybe if you learned a little bit about this guy, you wouldn't think his books were not worthy of articles on Wikipedia. I mean what do you want me to do? Read and comment and spoil each novella? There's nothing that pisses me off more than an editor that gives a 2 paragraph synopsis of what happens in a book to have the entire work ruined. I don't publish high school level book reports! If that has come down to doing that just to get my article published, then I'm done as an editor.PKDASD 21:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_R._Lansdale
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_R._Lansdale_bibliography


 * If you were going to write about the individual stories, yes you would have to give a very brief precis of the entire plot, including the ending. See WP:SPOILER. Everyone should realize by now that WP includes complete plots, and if they don't want to know the ending, they shouldn't come here. We're an encyclopedia, not a place to publish teasers.  But I see no evidence that this particular collection is notable   enough to have a WP article about it at all.
 * Are the individual stories notable" Have people written extensive critical commentary about any or all of them? Have any of them won an award individually? If so, they could each have an article. If these individual stories are not notable, but the overall work in that format is, which is probably the case,  there would be reason for a collected article about his short stories, where each of them is described in a paragraph--this is one of the options at WP:GNG.  Is this particular collection of stories notable as a collection? Is there substantial reviews of this particular collection? Did this particular collection win an award ? If it did, add that information and there can be an article.
 * The fact that an author is notable, does not make each of their individual works notable, much less each individual reprinted selection of them. If an author is very notable, then we can justify a separate article about each major novel, but only if an author is actually famous, which usually means Nobel prize calibre, then we probably could have articles about each of their individual works, down to each short story;  but even then we usually do not go to that level except for the best known and most published-about stories. And even then we don't list particular selected works as separate articles. We haven't even done that for Shakespeare--we do justify articles for each play and each sonnets, but that's because multiple critical work has been published about each. We could probably justify articles about some of the most famous collected editions, which have been similarly discussed. But we do not even for him make a separate article for each volume containing a selection of his plays or a selection of the poems.
 * There may be some existing articles here at this level about Lansdale's minor works or collections similar to this one. When I have no higher priority, I will probably challenge them. I'm not goign to challenge articles about his major novels--nobody would do that.  DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for supporting me in this polite way. If in the future I'll have any questions I'll not hesitate to contact you. -- 4evayoung77 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hendrik Jansen van Barrefelt (Hiël)
Dear David, thank you for your remark on the new article on John Sparrow (translator)! Now we have a question. We have added new pages on the Dutch and English Wikipedia sites on Hendrik Jansen van Barrefelt who published spiritual works using a pseudonym Hiël. We did this because of the erroneous name for Hendrik Jansen van Barrefelt on the Wikipedia pages on Pierre Poiret, both in the English, Dutch and French versions. We added the correct name "Hendrik Jansen van Barrefelt (Hiël)" as a link. As a result of this it became the heading "Hendrik Jansen van Barrefelt (Hiël)" for the new pages we created in Dutch and English for Hendrik Jansen van Barrefelt. Now for some unknown reason, however, the addition of "Hiël" has been removed from the English Wikipedia site. So now the connection between the Dutch and English versions is lost. See for an instance of what happens on the English page of Pierre Poiret. When you click on the link, you get the message "redirected from Hendrik Jansen van Barrefelt (Hiël). Could you please have a look at what happened? We really would like the two pages on Hendrik Jansen van Barrefelt (Hiël) to connect properly. Thanks very much. Best regards, Hanengerda Hanengerda (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We have an excellent way of making sure the connection does not get lost., Help:Interlanguage links. At the bottom of the left panel of the wiki page, where the list of versions in other wikipedias usually appears, you should see the words "add links". It lets you add the two letter code for another language version and the title for that version. (This step should be done even if the title is the same, for any page with an equivalent in another wiki.)  Even better: after doing it for one language version, all the other versions should automatically appear also if they exist, and the link to the English page will also automatically appear on the other language WPs. If someone adds another language, and links to any of the existing ones, everything gets automatically updated. (I've done this for you for Barrefelt--go the nl Wiki and see.) The is done by means of a separate database, WP:Wikidata. And better still: this also provides a way for making sure that such things as birth and death dates are consistent for all the wikis, and that if someone is living, when he dies and the death date is added to one wiki, for it to update on the others. At the moment, these parts are not automatic, but they probably  will be in a year or two, and eventually for all definable items of data in all the wikis.
 * I personally do not work on WikiData, but many Wikipedians work either mainly on it or on a language WP and also WikiData.  DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

DGG - please read the article - properly and the references
Your opinion is not fact - there are many external links in the Draft Buy Nothing Project article - I request a review by someone who is less obviously biassed against this undertaking. MissParker (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article was not lack of references--the sources are quite sufficient to meet our standards of notability .  Rather, I declined to accept the article for a reason much more important,  because it reads like advocacy or promotionalism, not like a NPOV encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy of an organization or its principles, or for promoting even the best social causes or groups with the best intentions. It is a place for neutral factual descriptions, which explain  what an organization is, and what it does. Articles must not be targeted to those who it is hoped might become members, but to he geneal public who might want to know about the group.
 * The draft however, with sentences like "On a local level, each Buy Nothing Project group has the potential to contribute significantly to its town's/county's waste prevention and waste reduction efforts" and the repeated restatements of its goal which make up 90% of the draft, amount to promotionalism. I encourage you to rewrite and resubmit.  DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - Harry Volpe article
Thank you for accepting the Harry Volpe article! Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayslearnedstuff (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

DGG - please read the article - properly and the references
Your opinion is not fact - there are many external links in the Draft Buy Nothing Project article - I request a review by someone who is less obviously biassed against this undertaking. MissParker (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article was not lack of references--the sources are quite sufficient to meet our standards of notability .  Rather, I declined to accept the article for a reason much more important,  because it reads like advocacy or promotionalism, not like a NPOV encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy of an organization or its principles, or for promoting even the best social causes or groups with the best intentions. It is a place for neutral factual descriptions, which explain  what an organization is, and what it does. Articles must not be targeted to those who it is hoped might become members, but to he geneal public who might want to know about the group.
 * The draft however, with sentences like "On a local level, each Buy Nothing Project group has the potential to contribute significantly to its town's/county's waste prevention and waste reduction efforts" and the repeated restatements of its goal which make up 90% of the draft, amount to promotionalism. I encourage you to rewrite and resubmit.  DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It may - or may not - be of interest to you to know that I've rewritten the article from scratch, and got a second opinion from another contributor. Rather than let this run and run, I'm tempted to quote John Major and make sure the authors of the article are inside the tent. If the article fails review, it doesn't matter. If it passes, I'll be permanently watching the page to ensure none of the promotional stuff is reintroduced. Deb (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I too shall wait for someone else to review it.  DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - Harry Volpe article
Thank you for accepting the Harry Volpe article! Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayslearnedstuff (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Your helpful comments on Leanne M Williams review
Dear DGG Thank you for your helpful comments on the draft page for Leanne M Williams.

I would like to take you up on your offer of help editing based on your experience with academic pages.

Initial questions are 1. How do I make the change from WP:GNG to WP:PROF

2. There are up to 250 independent peer-reviewed scientific citations to include. Is the best approach to add those based on the most highly cited as suggested. I had been following the recommendation to start small but this may have been misleading about the independent information. Leanne_M_Williams 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanne M Williams (talk • contribs)


 * You do not make the change of GNG to WP:PROF. Scientists can be notable under either guideline, and meeting either one is sufficient. Evaluating the article under GNG was simply not correct. It's a common error in new page patrol and AfC. Dealing with the error is up to the other patrollers.  As a very experienced patroller, I try to correct the error when I see it. In dealing with those who use it inappropriately I have found that my fixing it is usually enough of a hint. If anyone disagrees, there's a range of rather complicated procedures that I'd rather not get into now; I'll just say the basic guideline involved has been supported in every challenge for the last 10 years.


 * In terms of material to include, the general rule that I follow is to add the 3 or 4 most cited articles. Usually I take the numbers from Google Scholar, even though it's a little less accurate than Web of Science or Scopus, because anyone can verify it. If there are books, they should be added also. I never include chapters in books or conference papers, (except in those fields where conference papers are the most important publications). The standard for citation varies with field. In the biomedical sciences, most discussions have concluded that at least one paper with > 100 GS citations is necessary; you have many more, but you should give a link to your CV, and to Google Scholar, and people can see them there ( In the text, It is usually best to cite in addition only those papers that may have been responsible for the most improtant important prizes, or that  have made a really major discovery.


 * Even more important is to avoid wording that would be more appropriate for a web site than an encyclopedia . You need to say what you have done, not what you hope to do, or what the implications are. Use the sort of very carefully neutral and modest language one would use in the conclusion to a paper. This is why we say that it is very strongly advised not to write one's autobiography--it is difficult to be really objective.  DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I had not heard from you, I dealt with the article myself. . If there is material you wish to add, do not add it yourself to the article, but rather to the article's talk page, followed by .  DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Protect “Singapore University of Social Sciences”
Hi there, I will like to raise awareness that the “Singapore University of Social Sciences” page is prone to name change vandalism. Hopefully you could look into this.

Thank you. Applepineapple (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected the article for a while. If this is not enough, lease let me know.


 * But I need to ask you if you have any connection with this or other universities in Singapore, other than just being a student. Please see WP:COI for an explanation. If you do, please say so on your user page.  DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Solicitor General of Washington
Hi, in a recent AfD, the page Solicitor General of Washington, which you turned from a redirect to a page, was deleted. If you have any questions or you'd like to do a deletion review, you may do so here.

Thanks, ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  21:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * not really that important.  DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Myaqoob
I suspect that you intended to leave a block notice at User talk:Myaqoob. —teb728 t c 22:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oswald Boelcke
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oswald Boelcke. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ben Britton
Could you please take a look at this. I'm no expert on notability for scientists. I still  never understand why every ballplayer who ever played in one match gets a page on the flimsiest of sources when award-winning scientists who have contributed so much to research and knowledge have to jump through  so many hoops. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * for the obvious reason that more people understand & care about ballgames than science., even among  WPedians.  DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * but what I care about at WP is COI more than notability, and I understand the skepticism in this case. Differences in notability are of trivial long range importance, but COI writing can destroy our claim to NPOV.  DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Re 'Trans Tryer'
Hello, DGG. Recently you wrote about a draft I created with this name. Briefly: I recently read a news item which stated that WP had a new agreement with Google Translate. Because I read that, and am an optimist, I hoped that WP had created a new, automated 'mechanism'. Fooled again.

While I was exploring that, hoping to decipher where/how this might work (after, for the last time, struggling through WP's abysmal writeup on translation) ... I created a draft container. I gave it that throwaway name to do the experiment.

A machine translation is sometimes adequate to get a decent article stubbed. It's more valuable to get the translation into a visible page, thereby gaining an audience and opening an editing field for people who may not be expert editors, but may very well be very familiar with the subject-matter. As far as I could figure out, the news release was complete BS.

I do not wish to have anything to do with using Google directly. I consider their translations to be mostly shitty (as in: why do they even bother), but they are helpful in gathering facts that are helpful for research ... names, dates, places, etc. I've used that tactic several times in the past.

I will bother only with: 1) WP will take my request for a Google translation, ship that off to Google, and 2) pick up the result and drop it into my user-box. I'll take it from there. I'd be VERY glad to take advantage of such automation to improve many existing English articles about Europeans.

I'm not interested in wasting time on process (unlike many editors) ... I want to do research and create quality writeups, not turn endless cranks. So since I'm done, if you want to translate the article, that'd be great. Thanks for asking, and if/when WP gets its act together, if I'm still alive, I'll be thrilled. Twang (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Most people at the English Wikipedia fully share your skepticism. The use of the WP translate feature, whether with or without G Translate, is in fact not authorized here except for experienced users. As I mentioned, I do some translations of straightforward articles from frWP, and I never use it--I test it from time to time to see if it has gotten any better, but l tried a few days ago, & threw out the result and started over. The use of GTranslate as a starting point is sometimes helpful. How close it comes depends on the subject and the language, and I have never seen a translation from it that doesn't need revision--usually substantial revision. (I really do not see why machine translation can not automatically fix substitute it for she when referring to inanimate objects in Spanish, for example, or know to use the past tense for past events)   But it's a help sometimes, like a dictionary.  The actually difficult factor in doing translations is not as much language skills, as cultural and subject knowledge. The   institutions mentioned need to be specified so they will be understood--the terms of art used properly--the historical events & the geography put in context.
 * There's a lot of machinery here that most people ignore, and only a few specialists bother with. As you realize, you don't have to know things like categories or reference format to write articles. All that is necessary is to get the article right and see that it is referenced clearly enough in any format so that some of the many people who do like to check such things can adjust the details. So I very strongly urge you to do just that:use the other language's article for information, and write an equivalent. it doesn't even have to be a translation, just an equivalent, with more or less detail as appropriate, and even a start at one that makes an understandable stub is helpful   DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I wonder whether you can help with this
Hi DGG: I suspect you are now retired, but I'd still like to ask your help with something; please tell me upfront if it's too much hassle, as it may well be.

I found to my surprise that we did not have an article on Sylvia Chase, and the NYT took its own sweet time producing an obit for her (they were apparently corresponding with relatives and friends), so I wound up writing it. The three newspaper obituaries have somewhat surprising factual discrepancies, for which the underlying cause appears to me to be that there's a yawning gap online where the contemporary coverage of her time at 20/20, and indeed most of her journalistic work, should be. Google News Archive search is now very poor indeed; I think they are only giving me very early search results, and/or results from even more of the major papers have been withdrawn from visibility. (There was always a search problem from the poor OCR, but I don't think that explains the lack of hits in this instance.) And while I found some coverage via a NYT archive search, I don't have access to the old printed index, much less the microfilms, and didn't find what I expected to find. Namely in particular, I've been trying to establish what exactly the two segments were on for which she received Emmy awards while with 20/20. The Emmy website gives the title for one as "Exploding Gas Tanks", so I would especially like to know whether that was on the Ford Pinto, or was a segment on GMC trucks for which the network was subsequently criticized for using incendiaries and not mentioning that the film clips used were unrepresentative of results, or was something other than either. Her career was profiled in several books on women in the media, so I am working that angle via interlibrary loan, but I am now across the country from the NYPL and the Museum of Broadcasting and don't even have a SFPL card to get at any relevant special collections there. So I wonder if you can track down any old print coverage that can be used to make the account of her work more specific? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will take a quick look, but I unfortunately  can't realistically  promise to do more than that. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. I can probably still add a little more from the books, but it will now have to wait for my home internet to be restored; I'm online on a work break right now. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Harrison Street Real Estate
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Harrison Street Real Estate, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: previous versions of the article contain claims of significance, take it to WP:AFD instead please. Thank you. So Why  08:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked further back into the history--the firm is notable ; I've restored the key contents and commented., Thanks for correcting my error.   DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

CabanaCore Media Group Speedy Deletion
Hello!

I'd like to know why my page was deleted and how I can fix it for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colincabana (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the page was deleted for several reasons: first, judging by your username you are very likely to be an editor with WP:Conflict of Interest, and you did not declare it. Second, the article was obviously designed and intended to advertise your edeavors. Third, there was nothing substantial to advertise, as it would seem to be just starting out, and has released nothing in a regular channel nor signed any notable artists (Amazon, as is well known, will let almost anyone try to sell almost anything ) . Fourth, there were no third party reference sat all, but just links to your website.  (and your own page on amazon would have been no better). What do you did to get a page? To have done something important enough that it will be covered by substantial 3rd party reliable published sources.   When you do, someone without a conflict of itnerestwill know about you and write an article.  DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Linda Gottfredson
Hello DGG,

Recently you contributed to the Talk:Linda Gottfredson page and shared some helpful insights. As it stands, there are five editors in consensus over the proposed changes, and only one against. I wanted to reach out to you directly to see if you would, at this point, be willing to enact the changes. If not, I'd appreciate any advice you could offer regarding the next step forward.

Thanks for your assistance, 2601:42:800:A9DB:C552:99A0:180E:B293 (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * perhaps you would specify the changes you would like to make. Alternatively, make them, and let me know, and I will go there and comment,  DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey DGG -- The proposed changes were noted on the Gottfredson page, and I see you largely agreed with them. However, one person as expected still vehemently disagrees. Do you believe it's fair to proceed with the changes since the consensus appears to be in agreement? Thanks once again for your insight. 2601:42:800:A9DB:155D:A6E0:AB26:C927 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I will comment, but I cannot impose my own view of what is the correct version. No single admin can do that, though an uninvolved single admin can summarize a dispute.  I will however, make some suggestions  for going forward forward, including additional people to ask..
 * But, having read the material, I am no longer an uninvolved administrator. I  now have a definite view on the subject, which is that her published work is in no way racist . . All I can therefore do is argue for it, like any other editor. This is   why I do not act as an admin in fields where I are very much about personally--and for the ones I really personally care strongly  about, I will usually not even edit, for I do not like to get involved in the usual WP cross-exchanges about  who of the various people with strong opinions is the most  biased. I could have chosen otherwise, and used my abilities at understanding scientific material and constructing effective arguments according to any arbitrary set of rules (such as those used in WP) for trying to bring important WP articles to express what I think  fair view of the subject. Some early experiences here have left me with the impression that anyone trying to give a fair view of a controversial subject will be subject to abuse from both sides and is unlikely to make progress.
 * I've therefore preferred to work in other aspects-, rescuing poor but improvable articles in any field I know enough to do so, and trying, conversely, to keep  advertising and self-promotion   out of Wikipedia.these are things I can do with needing to have an opinion on the subject.  That I'm going to get involved in the argument here is one of my rare exceptions.  I do need to ask you a question about conflict of interest--you can do this best by emailing me. in confidence. I'm still bound by the proises of confidentiality I undertook as an arbitrator.  DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to e-mail but it doesn't appear unregistered users can use the Wiki e-mail service. If you provide an e-mail address, I will address all of your concerns (I do not see any other e-mail address on your page). Thanks, 2601:42:800:A9DB:155D:A6E0:AB26:C927 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * so register. You will need to give your email so I can reply, but you can then remove it. Of course, if you have already registered a WP account, do not register a new one, but use the old one. Even if it has been blocked,, usually email isn't prevented) DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’d prefer not to create an account at this time, but I’m more than willing to answer any questions you have, and you have my permission to ask them publicly here on this page. If you’d rather ask them in private, I can provide an e-mail address. Thanks, 2601:42:800:A9DB:5854:DB1E:87BF:CDDB (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: John Greschner
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of John Greschner, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: notability is for AFD to determine but appearing multiple times on notable shows and coverage related to his crime, significance exists sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. So Why  08:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to pursue this one--not high enough priority, but if anyone wants ti, I think the sources are insufficently reliable for a blp.  DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

G.N.P.C.
Hi, Regarding your recent deletion of G.N.P.C.. The page was tagged CSD once but the CSD was declined. It was prodded, but I expanded it with more claims and references. The page is quite notable for the police action and has been covered widely by newspapers from India and Kerala in particular (I see the possible argument about one-event notability but there are references from before the event as well as after). I request you to reconsider the deletion and take it to AfD instead-- Raziman T V (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it had even  any claim whatsoever for significance. But if you like, I will move it to Draft space. If you can find more substnatial references, there might conceivably be a chance. There's no point restoring it to article space now, for it would be quickly deleted. OK?  DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim for significance was the police case against the group. It is not often that the state police starts investigations against a Facebook group and it gets statewide and National coverage. There were nearly ten news references in the article and all were specifically about the group and the case. As such, I think it satisfies WP:GNG and it was much more reasonable to take it to Afd especially since a speedy was declined already and the prod was contested. -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Different interpretations of what constitutes a claim of significance aside, I really don't think you should speedy delete something when another admin, no matter who, has already declined to do so. It undermines your fellow admins' authority if you decide that you need to show that you know better than others. As such, I ask you to restore the article per [WP:RAAA]] and take it to WP:AFD if you believe notability is lacking. Regards So  Why  08:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the article would likely be an almost unanimous delete as far as I can tell. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ,Though it may look like it, I did not directly revert your decline of the deletion; I saw it subsequently, on the list of Prods, and judging by the face of it, thought it was a speedy. Since it did not appear viable, I then suggested other ways to deal with it.   I never object to sending a speedy to which there is good faith objection to AfD. It's at  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.N.P.C.. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

About my Timeline of European automobiles
Hello, HizppaN here... about my recent page, I know it doesn't seem or look like much... but I plan to fill it up whenever I can. I am currently busy with University work and is really busy with it, but whenever I have the time and opportunity, I plan to fill it up and finish the page (much like my Timeline of Japanese automobiles if you haven't seen it yet). Please understand, it's what I want to do. Thank you for deciding not to delete my timeline page, I'm new to the wikipedia page, so I don't really know if things go bad or not (unless some obvious words appear)! Thanks again! ( from )  04:42, January 23, 2019‎
 * Here's what I recommend-I can move it to your user space as User:HazppaN/Timeline of European Automobiles where you can work on it: when enough has been filled in to make an article, then I can move it back for you. (You do have the right to request it be restored as is, and I will restore it, but somebody will nominate it for a deletion discussion, and I think it has a good chance of getting deleted., so I don't recommend that.  .  And, it is very highly prefeerred that for this and for the Japanese automobiles article, that you provide  a specific external for each item (I know it's in the linked WP article, but it has to be specifically on this page itself--if there's a single convenient references book, you can use it for all of them)  OK ?  DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

DGG - please read the article - properly and the references
Your opinion is not fact - there are many external links in the Draft Buy Nothing Project article - I request a review by someone who is less obviously biassed against this undertaking. MissParker (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article was not lack of references--the sources are quite sufficient to meet our standards of notability .  Rather, I declined to accept the article for a reason much more important,  because it reads like advocacy or promotionalism, not like a NPOV encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy of an organization or its principles, or for promoting even the best social causes or groups with the best intentions. It is a place for neutral factual descriptions, which explain  what an organization is, and what it does. Articles must not be targeted to those who it is hoped might become members, but to he geneal public who might want to know about the group.
 * The draft however, with sentences like "On a local level, each Buy Nothing Project group has the potential to contribute significantly to its town's/county's waste prevention and waste reduction efforts" and the repeated restatements of its goal which make up 90% of the draft, amount to promotionalism. I encourage you to rewrite and resubmit.  DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It may - or may not - be of interest to you to know that I've rewritten the article from scratch, and got a second opinion from another contributor. Rather than let this run and run, I'm tempted to quote John Major and make sure the authors of the article are inside the tent. If the article fails review, it doesn't matter. If it passes, I'll be permanently watching the page to ensure none of the promotional stuff is reintroduced. Deb (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I too shall wait for someone else to review it.  DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Your helpful comments on Leanne M Williams review
Dear DGG Thank you for your helpful comments on the draft page for Leanne M Williams.

I would like to take you up on your offer of help editing based on your experience with academic pages.

Initial questions are 1. How do I make the change from WP:GNG to WP:PROF

2. There are up to 250 independent peer-reviewed scientific citations to include. Is the best approach to add those based on the most highly cited as suggested. I had been following the recommendation to start small but this may have been misleading about the independent information. Leanne_M_Williams 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leanne M Williams (talk • contribs)


 * You do not make the change of GNG to WP:PROF. Scientists can be notable under either guideline, and meeting either one is sufficient. Evaluating the article under GNG was simply not correct. It's a common error in new page patrol and AfC. Dealing with the error is up to the other patrollers.  As a very experienced patroller, I try to correct the error when I see it. In dealing with those who use it inappropriately I have found that my fixing it is usually enough of a hint. If anyone disagrees, there's a range of rather complicated procedures that I'd rather not get into now; I'll just say the basic guideline involved has been supported in every challenge for the last 10 years.


 * In terms of material to include, the general rule that I follow is to add the 3 or 4 most cited articles. Usually I take the numbers from Google Scholar, even though it's a little less accurate than Web of Science or Scopus, because anyone can verify it. If there are books, they should be added also. I never include chapters in books or conference papers, (except in those fields where conference papers are the most important publications). The standard for citation varies with field. In the biomedical sciences, most discussions have concluded that at least one paper with > 100 GS citations is necessary; you have many more, but you should give a link to your CV, and to Google Scholar, and people can see them there ( In the text, It is usually best to cite in addition only those papers that may have been responsible for the most improtant important prizes, or that  have made a really major discovery.


 * Even more important is to avoid wording that would be more appropriate for a web site than an encyclopedia . You need to say what you have done, not what you hope to do, or what the implications are. Use the sort of very carefully neutral and modest language one would use in the conclusion to a paper. This is why we say that it is very strongly advised not to write one's autobiography--it is difficult to be really objective.  DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I had not heard from you, I dealt with the article myself. . If there is material you wish to add, do not add it yourself to the article, but rather to the article's talk page, followed by .  DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ben Britton
Could you please take a look at this. I'm no expert on notability for scientists. I still  never understand why every ballplayer who ever played in one match gets a page on the flimsiest of sources when award-winning scientists who have contributed so much to research and knowledge have to jump through  so many hoops. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * for the obvious reason that more people understand & care about ballgames than science., even among  WPedians.  DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * but what I care about at WP is COI more than notability, and I understand the skepticism in this case. Differences in notability are of trivial long range importance, but COI writing can destroy our claim to NPOV.  DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Re 'Trans Tryer'
Hello, DGG. Recently you wrote about a draft I created with this name. Briefly: I recently read a news item which stated that WP had a new agreement with Google Translate. Because I read that, and am an optimist, I hoped that WP had created a new, automated 'mechanism'. Fooled again.

While I was exploring that, hoping to decipher where/how this might work (after, for the last time, struggling through WP's abysmal writeup on translation) ... I created a draft container. I gave it that throwaway name to do the experiment.

A machine translation is sometimes adequate to get a decent article stubbed. It's more valuable to get the translation into a visible page, thereby gaining an audience and opening an editing field for people who may not be expert editors, but may very well be very familiar with the subject-matter. As far as I could figure out, the news release was complete BS.

I do not wish to have anything to do with using Google directly. I consider their translations to be mostly shitty (as in: why do they even bother), but they are helpful in gathering facts that are helpful for research ... names, dates, places, etc. I've used that tactic several times in the past.

I will bother only with: 1) WP will take my request for a Google translation, ship that off to Google, and 2) pick up the result and drop it into my user-box. I'll take it from there. I'd be VERY glad to take advantage of such automation to improve many existing English articles about Europeans.

I'm not interested in wasting time on process (unlike many editors) ... I want to do research and create quality writeups, not turn endless cranks. So since I'm done, if you want to translate the article, that'd be great. Thanks for asking, and if/when WP gets its act together, if I'm still alive, I'll be thrilled. Twang (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Most people at the English Wikipedia fully share your skepticism. The use of the WP translate feature, whether with or without G Translate, is in fact not authorized here except for experienced users. As I mentioned, I do some translations of straightforward articles from frWP, and I never use it--I test it from time to time to see if it has gotten any better, but l tried a few days ago, & threw out the result and started over. The use of GTranslate as a starting point is sometimes helpful. How close it comes depends on the subject and the language, and I have never seen a translation from it that doesn't need revision--usually substantial revision. (I really do not see why machine translation can not automatically fix substitute it for she when referring to inanimate objects in Spanish, for example, or know to use the past tense for past events)   But it's a help sometimes, like a dictionary.  The actually difficult factor in doing translations is not as much language skills, as cultural and subject knowledge. The   institutions mentioned need to be specified so they will be understood--the terms of art used properly--the historical events & the geography put in context.
 * There's a lot of machinery here that most people ignore, and only a few specialists bother with. As you realize, you don't have to know things like categories or reference format to write articles. All that is necessary is to get the article right and see that it is referenced clearly enough in any format so that some of the many people who do like to check such things can adjust the details. So I very strongly urge you to do just that:use the other language's article for information, and write an equivalent. it doesn't even have to be a translation, just an equivalent, with more or less detail as appropriate, and even a start at one that makes an understandable stub is helpful   DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Harrison Street Real Estate
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Harrison Street Real Estate, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: previous versions of the article contain claims of significance, take it to WP:AFD instead please. Thank you. So Why  08:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked further back into the history--the firm is notable ; I've restored the key contents and commented., Thanks for correcting my error.   DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

CabanaCore Media Group Speedy Deletion
Hello!

I'd like to know why my page was deleted and how I can fix it for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colincabana (talk • contribs) 23:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the page was deleted for several reasons: first, judging by your username you are very likely to be an editor with WP:Conflict of Interest, and you did not declare it. Second, the article was obviously designed and intended to advertise your edeavors. Third, there was nothing substantial to advertise, as it would seem to be just starting out, and has released nothing in a regular channel nor signed any notable artists (Amazon, as is well known, will let almost anyone try to sell almost anything ) . Fourth, there were no third party reference sat all, but just links to your website.  (and your own page on amazon would have been no better). What do you did to get a page? To have done something important enough that it will be covered by substantial 3rd party reliable published sources.   When you do, someone without a conflict of interest will know about you and write an article.  DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Linda Gottfredson
Hello DGG,

Recently you contributed to the Talk:Linda Gottfredson page and shared some helpful insights. As it stands, there are five editors in consensus over the proposed changes, and only one against. I wanted to reach out to you directly to see if you would, at this point, be willing to enact the changes. If not, I'd appreciate any advice you could offer regarding the next step forward.

Thanks for your assistance, 2601:42:800:A9DB:C552:99A0:180E:B293 (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * perhaps you would specify the changes you would like to make. Alternatively, make them, and let me know, and I will go there and comment,  DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey DGG -- The proposed changes were noted on the Gottfredson page, and I see you largely agreed with them. However, one person as expected still vehemently disagrees. Do you believe it's fair to proceed with the changes since the consensus appears to be in agreement? Thanks once again for your insight. 2601:42:800:A9DB:155D:A6E0:AB26:C927 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I will comment, but I cannot impose my own view of what is the correct version. No single admin can do that, though an uninvolved single admin can summarize a dispute.  I will however, make some suggestions  for going forward forward, including additional people to ask..
 * But, having read the material, I am no longer an uninvolved administrator. I  now have a definite view on the subject, which is that her published work is in no way racist . . All I can therefore do is argue for it, like any other editor. This is   why I do not act as an admin in fields where I are very much about personally--and for the ones I really personally care strongly  about, I will usually not even edit, for I do not like to get involved in the usual WP cross-exchanges about  who of the various people with strong opinions is the most  biased. I could have chosen otherwise, and used my abilities at understanding scientific material and constructing effective arguments according to any arbitrary set of rules (such as those used in WP) for trying to bring important WP articles to express what I think  fair view of the subject. Some early experiences here have left me with the impression that anyone trying to give a fair view of a controversial subject will be subject to abuse from both sides and is unlikely to make progress.
 * I've therefore preferred to work in other aspects-, rescuing poor but improvable articles in any field I know enough to do so, and trying, conversely, to keep  advertising and self-promotion   out of Wikipedia.these are things I can do with needing to have an opinion on the subject.  That I'm going to get involved in the argument here is one of my rare exceptions.  I do need to ask you a question about conflict of interest--you can do this best by emailing me. in confidence. I'm still bound by the proises of confidentiality I undertook as an arbitrator.  DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to e-mail but it doesn't appear unregistered users can use the Wiki e-mail service. If you provide an e-mail address, I will address all of your concerns (I do not see any other e-mail address on your page). Thanks, 2601:42:800:A9DB:155D:A6E0:AB26:C927 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * so register. You will need to give your email so I can reply, but you can then remove it. Of course, if you have already registered a WP account, do not register a new one, but use the old one. Even if it has been blocked,, usually email isn't prevented) DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’d prefer not to create an account at this time, but I’m more than willing to answer any questions you have, and you have my permission to ask them publicly here on this page. If you’d rather ask them in private, I can provide an e-mail address. Thanks, 2601:42:800:A9DB:5854:DB1E:87BF:CDDB (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In case your inquiry is in regards to my possible affiliation with Gottfredson, allow me to answer preemptively: I have absolutely no affiliation with Gottfredson; I don’t know her in person, nor am I being compensated in any manner for editing her article. My interest in her article is a product of my observance of the misrepresentation of her and others in controversial fields, and I’ve edited a few other articles on similar topics.
 * Should you have any further questions, or if this wasn’t relevant to what you were going to ask, I’m once again more than willing to answer via e-mail or on this page. However, if this answer puts you at ease, I’d like to redirect you back to the article at hand — Do you think we have enough of a consensus to proceed with the proposed changes? If not, I’d appreciate your experienced input regarding what our course of action should be. 2601:42:800:A9DB:F986:3B6F:D612:B874 (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See above about uninvolved--I want confirmation. . I am asking  two very sensible editors whom I really trust to say what they think without necessarily agreeing with me :,  .  DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, DGG is involved; therefore, any edits he makes or opinions he expresses will not be in his capacity as an admin. Regarding the potential of a COI involving the IP, my initial thoughts are to WP:AGF, and accept his public denial of a COI in his paragraph above. Since local consensus agrees with what the IP recommended, I'm of the mind that an informal summary of those arguments would suffice as support for a BRD edit. If the opposing editor objects, then a formal RfC should be called. I will also add an excerpt from what I consider to be an enlightening discussion which may have some relevance here. I keep it displayed at the top of my user TP under the title "To include it in a BLP or not?": A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views. (quote by Zaereth edited for brevity; Jimbo Wales agreed.) Hope that helps. Atsme ✍🏻📧 11:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Atsme, I really appreciate the response, and agree with your referenced quote -- This line of thinking is what drives me to assist biography pages which have been written unfairly due to ideological bias.


 * With that said, DGG, do you intend to make the edit(s) based on the proposed changes, or would you rather another trusted member weigh in before we proceed? Thanks once again, 2601:42:800:A9DB:ECC0:551B:9183:5CD6 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I was waiting for the conclusion of Amendment request: Race and intelligence,, because the issues there are closely related, I take the result to mean that the majority of the present arb com is in agreement with my view of it, though, there also, at least one person is not. But you will notice 's point, that this will probably lead to a formal RfC , in which case everything will have to be disputed here yet again. The result will be. as always, unpredictable. If so, I will probably feel that I have to comment in it, and this is a topic I very emphatically do not want to work on at Wikipedia.   I shall do what I think the minimum necessary.    DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Do you happen to know when a decision will be rendered on that case? 2601:42:800:A9DB:F0B3:BBB1:C14B:1097 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * this issue is not going to be finally resolved for a long time. As I have said, I don't intend to follow it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was referring to the specific amendment request you linked — when do you believe that will be finalized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:800:A9DB:F0B3:BBB1:C14B:1097 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: John Greschner
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of John Greschner, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: notability is for AFD to determine but appearing multiple times on notable shows and coverage related to his crime, significance exists sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. So Why  08:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to pursue this one--not high enough priority, but if anyone wants ti, I think the sources are insufficently reliable for a blp.  DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

G.N.P.C.
Hi, Regarding your recent deletion of G.N.P.C.. The page was tagged CSD once but the CSD was declined. It was prodded, but I expanded it with more claims and references. The page is quite notable for the police action and has been covered widely by newspapers from India and Kerala in particular (I see the possible argument about one-event notability but there are references from before the event as well as after). I request you to reconsider the deletion and take it to AfD instead-- Raziman T V (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it had even  any claim whatsoever for significance. But if you like, I will move it to Draft space. If you can find more substnatial references, there might conceivably be a chance. There's no point restoring it to article space now, for it would be quickly deleted. OK?  DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim for significance was the police case against the group. It is not often that the state police starts investigations against a Facebook group and it gets statewide and National coverage. There were nearly ten news references in the article and all were specifically about the group and the case. As such, I think it satisfies WP:GNG and it was much more reasonable to take it to Afd especially since a speedy was declined already and the prod was contested. -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Different interpretations of what constitutes a claim of significance aside, I really don't think you should speedy delete something when another admin, no matter who, has already declined to do so. It undermines your fellow admins' authority if you decide that you need to show that you know better than others. As such, I ask you to restore the article per [WP:RAAA]] and take it to WP:AFD if you believe notability is lacking. Regards So  Why  08:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the article would likely be an almost unanimous delete as far as I can tell. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ,Though it may look like it, I did not directly revert your decline of the deletion; I saw it subsequently, on the list of Prods, and judging by the face of it, thought it was a speedy. Since it did not appear viable, I then suggested other ways to deal with it.   I never object to sending a speedy to which there is good faith objection to AfD. It's at  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.N.P.C.. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for undeleting and taking to AfD. Best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

About my Timeline of European automobiles
Hello, HizppaN here... about my recent page, I know it doesn't seem or look like much... but I plan to fill it up whenever I can. I am currently busy with University work and is really busy with it, but whenever I have the time and opportunity, I plan to fill it up and finish the page (much like my Timeline of Japanese automobiles if you haven't seen it yet). Please understand, it's what I want to do. Thank you for deciding not to delete my timeline page, I'm new to the wikipedia page, so I don't really know if things go bad or not (unless some obvious words appear)! Thanks again! ( from )  04:42, January 23, 2019‎
 * Here's what I recommend-I can move it to your user space as User:HazppaN/Timeline of European Automobiles where you can work on it: when enough has been filled in to make an article, then I can move it back for you. (You do have the right to request it be restored as is, and I will restore it, but somebody will nominate it for a deletion discussion, and I think it has a good chance of getting deleted., so I don't recommend that.  .  And, it is very highly prefeerred that for this and for the Japanese automobiles article, that you provide  a specific external for each item (I know it's in the linked WP article, but it has to be specifically on this page itself--if there's a single convenient references book, you can use it for all of them)   OK ?  DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh okay, go ahead and put it in my user space, thanks! Someone already nominated it for deletion, so that's pretty concerning for me. As for the external reference to the Japanese timeline... I got this book called "Car Design Asia" with it's ISBN code "ISBN 978-3-8327-9538-2" by "Paolo Tumminelli" with "teNeues" as his website I assume? Could you tell me how to get this specific external going? I'm sorry if I seem inconsiderate putting up pages that are not "manageable", but honestly I am not bothered by it... I just want to note down the automobiles that came out during the years especially the classics and exotics because they are simply worth the noting. There's also Car Design Europe as well "ISBN 978-3-8327-9459-0" for the external for the European timeline.


 * Some people--including myself--think articles of this sort are appropriate for an encyclopedia, but others don't. As WP has no way of ensuring consistent decisions, what can happen to any particular article will unfortunately vary, and there are no guarantees. What does help is making sure that such pages are impeccably sourced, because it's a shame to do the work and then not have it stay in WP. So you ought to be concerned with making these articles as strong as possible. re.  For the Japanese list. List the book as a source, and put the particular place in the book where the dates for each auto is mentioned. The technique is at WP:REFBEGIN, Section 5.2. Don't worry about mistakes in formatting---they cnab e fixed, but get the basic data in. (there should also be a number of other geneal books on the subject)  references. For the European autos, now that it is at afd, I can; just move it to user space, there has to be a community decision, but I have commented there.  DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

RE your PROD Trevor Maynard, I have now properly cited articles from third party newspaper and magazine references, and am in the process of putting in ISBN for all books included. I firmly belief the fact he has published the work of over 170 poets is noteworthy. I am in the process of seeing how many of these have their own wiki pages, or should have. Peteralansoron (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC) User:Peteralansoron peteralansoron
 * It is possible that he may conceivably have ben notable  as a playwright. I suspect you may have a harder time showing his poetry career is significant. I'm rediting it a little to exmphsise the playwriting.  DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment about revising promotional articles, from a user talk p.

 * But this further explains my dissatisfaction with negotiating articles with coi editors. I can revise an article till I think it acceptable, and fair, and informatively describes the subject. . What I can not do and will not do, is revise an article so if makes a more effective presentation of the subject. Presenting the subject effectively  the way they would want to be presented, is the job of PR,  and a perfectly respectable thing to do--elsewhere.  I will not help anyone do it here, and to the extent I edit, I will reduce the article to documented informative material: forsome relevant  examples, if a person's books and awards are listed once, it provides the needed information, and  there is no need to list them twice over. If reviews are cited, there's no reason to pick our the favorable bits. If someone's avocational interests unrelated to notability  are mentioned and linked to a source for further information, there's no need to explain them further.  DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Please be the judge
Hello DGG, I think I’m in sort of commotion with user Ignaxiouslow.

While my intention was presenting the Singapore Institute of Technology page in a fact based light with cited references and less on marketing, the user have gotten back at the Singapore University of Social Sciences page with somehow demeaning sentences “SUSS will retain and develop its existing strong culture in service learning, and expand its offering of professional development programmes, which are not always at the degree level” at the opening lines.

Does this constitute vandalism? Applepineapple (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * those comments aren't demeaning, but they're pure advertising, and a good reason why a separate article shouldnt exist; it decreases the temptation. I'll check tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the other editor has now been blocked as a sockpuppet, so you are unlikely to have further difficulties at either article.If they reappear under what seems to be another name., let me know and I can check &, if appropriate, block.
 * But both articles still need attention, and I'll try to give some. Details of what examinations are required for admission are aimed at prospective students, not the general reader; they are therefore considered promotional.  DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Irina
Hello. The source for the book - 1. Could you help to restore the article? Thank.Namerst (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will look, but not immediately.  DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. Have not watched? Namerst (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The book exists in Russian. that by itself is not enough additional information to create a viable article.  Even if I could find evidence that the  translations exist, and are published by a regular unaffiliated publisher, it still wouldn't be enough.  . DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC).

NYU faculty articles
Hello, I looked over Marisa Carrasco, changed "Publications" to "References" and removed the tags per the talk page comments. The references on the article, and the many not there, are enough to show notability. As noted if there are continuing neutrality concerns they can be addressed on the talk page. Many times I tag or leave comments on article talk pages, in attempts to not be a "drive-by tagger", with plans to revisit. It is made easier when there are comments of substance. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Abercrombie & Kent
Hi. You recently sent me the following notice:
 * Ambox warning pn.svg
 * A tag has been placed on Abercrombie & Kent, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.


 * If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the .   DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I am mystified and at a loss how to respond. I have no recollection of ever having contributed to this article; indeed I had to google "Abercrombie & Kent" to find out who or what they were. Given that, and the fact that the page and its history has been deleted, how am I supposed to respond to this notification?. Can you give me a clue as to why I was sent the notification please, or some pointers as to how I can go about forming an opinion on the matter. Thanks in advance. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , these notices are sent automatically whenever an article is listed for deletion. The intention is that if is not yet deleted,and the editor is here in time, they can improve it, or, if it has already been deleted, they can ask for it to be restored   or ask for a further explanation of the problem. But unfortunately, the program is not very clever in figuring out who is the actual first editor, and it has no way of figuring out who is the editor actually responsible for the major contributions. We have asked for this to be improved for many years now, but it hasn't happened. The decision has been to continue with the bot anyway, in ode hat some notification be given, on grounds of fairness--and because at least 10% of the time, there is a valid objection to deletion, and in another 10%, the article gets quickly improved and does not have to be deleted.
 * In this particular case, apparently the boy notified you because of your previous change of the page into a redirect to Geoffrey Kent.  I do not know why it chose to pick up on that,


 * More important, it seems a reasonable redirect, and I shall make it. And more important still, the article on the person is undisguised puffery and needs to be either greatly improved or removed. I'll look at it more carefully tomorrow.


 * I always appreciate being notified of apparent errors. Sometimes they are indeed errors that need o be corrected; sometimes they disclose other problems. And often they give me an opporunity for a mini-essay on how & why things work here in the peculiar way they do.  DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Must confess I have no memory of doing that, but I certainly don't see any reason to contest the speedy delete. It would be nice if the bot could explain why it has sent the notification, even if just to give a date for the triggering edit. As I have almost 15 years of edits to look back on, I'm unlikely to remember everything. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Singapore Management University Page
Hello DGG once again, noticed that this page Singapore Management University is written like an advertisement. Need your help please. Thank you. :) — Preceding User:Applepineapple comment added by User:Applepineapple (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will look.  DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

SMU School of Law
I’m sorry,user: Manderiko kept on reverting back the contents in SMU School of Law including advertisement and overly detailed tags from user:Drmies.

I’m not sure if user: Manderiko have any interest in that page since he seems to be overly involved in it and other Law and Law school related pages. Applepineapple (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * All law school pages accumulate this sort of thing; I've been systematically removing promotionalism from the US law schools. (Next up: medical schools.) What this editor specializes in is Singapore university related puffery.  DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Linda Gottfredson
Hello DGG,

Recently you contributed to the Talk:Linda Gottfredson page and shared some helpful insights. As it stands, there are five editors in consensus over the proposed changes, and only one against. I wanted to reach out to you directly to see if you would, at this point, be willing to enact the changes. If not, I'd appreciate any advice you could offer regarding the next step forward.

Thanks for your assistance, 2601:42:800:A9DB:C552:99A0:180E:B293 (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * perhaps you would specify the changes you would like to make. Alternatively, make them, and let me know, and I will go there and comment,  DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey DGG -- The proposed changes were noted on the Gottfredson page, and I see you largely agreed with them. However, one person as expected still vehemently disagrees. Do you believe it's fair to proceed with the changes since the consensus appears to be in agreement? Thanks once again for your insight. 2601:42:800:A9DB:155D:A6E0:AB26:C927 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I will comment, but I cannot impose my own view of what is the correct version. No single admin can do that, though an uninvolved single admin can summarize a dispute.  I will however, make some suggestions  for going forward forward, including additional people to ask..
 * But, having read the material, I am no longer an uninvolved administrator. I  now have a definite view on the subject, which is that her published work is in no way racist . . All I can therefore do is argue for it, like any other editor. This is   why I do not act as an admin in fields where I are very much about personally--and for the ones I really personally care strongly  about, I will usually not even edit, for I do not like to get involved in the usual WP cross-exchanges about  who of the various people with strong opinions is the most  biased. I could have chosen otherwise, and used my abilities at understanding scientific material and constructing effective arguments according to any arbitrary set of rules (such as those used in WP) for trying to bring important WP articles to express what I think  fair view of the subject. Some early experiences here have left me with the impression that anyone trying to give a fair view of a controversial subject will be subject to abuse from both sides and is unlikely to make progress.
 * I've therefore preferred to work in other aspects-, rescuing poor but improvable articles in any field I know enough to do so, and trying, conversely, to keep  advertising and self-promotion   out of Wikipedia.these are things I can do with needing to have an opinion on the subject.  That I'm going to get involved in the argument here is one of my rare exceptions.  I do need to ask you a question about conflict of interest--you can do this best by emailing me. in confidence. I'm still bound by the proises of confidentiality I undertook as an arbitrator.  DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to e-mail but it doesn't appear unregistered users can use the Wiki e-mail service. If you provide an e-mail address, I will address all of your concerns (I do not see any other e-mail address on your page). Thanks, 2601:42:800:A9DB:155D:A6E0:AB26:C927 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * so register. You will need to give your email so I can reply, but you can then remove it. Of course, if you have already registered a WP account, do not register a new one, but use the old one. Even if it has been blocked,, usually email isn't prevented) DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’d prefer not to create an account at this time, but I’m more than willing to answer any questions you have, and you have my permission to ask them publicly here on this page. If you’d rather ask them in private, I can provide an e-mail address. Thanks, 2601:42:800:A9DB:5854:DB1E:87BF:CDDB (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In case your inquiry is in regards to my possible affiliation with Gottfredson, allow me to answer preemptively: I have absolutely no affiliation with Gottfredson; I don’t know her in person, nor am I being compensated in any manner for editing her article. My interest in her article is a product of my observance of the misrepresentation of her and others in controversial fields, and I’ve edited a few other articles on similar topics.
 * Should you have any further questions, or if this wasn’t relevant to what you were going to ask, I’m once again more than willing to answer via e-mail or on this page. However, if this answer puts you at ease, I’d like to redirect you back to the article at hand — Do you think we have enough of a consensus to proceed with the proposed changes? If not, I’d appreciate your experienced input regarding what our course of action should be. 2601:42:800:A9DB:F986:3B6F:D612:B874 (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See above about uninvolved--I want confirmation. . I am asking  two very sensible editors whom I really trust to say what they think without necessarily agreeing with me :,  .  DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, DGG is involved; therefore, any edits he makes or opinions he expresses will not be in his capacity as an admin. Regarding the potential of a COI involving the IP, my initial thoughts are to WP:AGF, and accept his public denial of a COI in his paragraph above. Since local consensus agrees with what the IP recommended, I'm of the mind that an informal summary of those arguments would suffice as support for a BRD edit. If the opposing editor objects, then a formal RfC should be called. I will also add an excerpt from what I consider to be an enlightening discussion which may have some relevance here. I keep it displayed at the top of my user TP under the title "To include it in a BLP or not?": A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views. (quote by Zaereth edited for brevity; Jimbo Wales agreed.) Hope that helps. Atsme ✍🏻📧 11:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Atsme, I really appreciate the response, and agree with your referenced quote -- This line of thinking is what drives me to assist biography pages which have been written unfairly due to ideological bias.


 * With that said, DGG, do you intend to make the edit(s) based on the proposed changes, or would you rather another trusted member weigh in before we proceed? Thanks once again, 2601:42:800:A9DB:ECC0:551B:9183:5CD6 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I was waiting for the conclusion of Amendment request: Race and intelligence,, because the issues there are closely related, I take the result to mean that the majority of the present arb com is in agreement with my view of it, though, there also, at least one person is not. But you will notice 's point, that this will probably lead to a formal RfC , in which case everything will have to be disputed here yet again. The result will be. as always, unpredictable. If so, I will probably feel that I have to comment in it, and this is a topic I very emphatically do not want to work on at Wikipedia.   I shall do what I think the minimum necessary.    DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Do you happen to know when a decision will be rendered on that case? 2601:42:800:A9DB:F0B3:BBB1:C14B:1097 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * this issue is not going to be finally resolved for a long time. As I have said, I don't intend to follow it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was referring to the specific amendment request you linked — when do you believe that will be finalized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:800:A9DB:F0B3:BBB1:C14B:1097 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

DGG, I’ve noticed the amendment request you linked has finalized and a positive decision rendered. Though I don’t want to appear overbearing, I did want to know if, as a result, you were going to implement the aforementioned changes to the Gottfredson article. I do understand your voiced reluctance to edit articles for which you hold a strong opinion, so if you’d rather not participate, that’s fine. However, in that case, I will be implementing the changes myself over the next few days. Thanks once again for your input. 2601:42:800:A9DB:A935:EBC7:C736:8F74 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

About my Timeline of European automobiles
Hello, HizppaN here... about my recent page, I know it doesn't seem or look like much... but I plan to fill it up whenever I can. I am currently busy with University work and is really busy with it, but whenever I have the time and opportunity, I plan to fill it up and finish the page (much like my Timeline of Japanese automobiles if you haven't seen it yet). Please understand, it's what I want to do. Thank you for deciding not to delete my timeline page, I'm new to the wikipedia page, so I don't really know if things go bad or not (unless some obvious words appear)! Thanks again! ( from )  04:42, January 23, 2019‎
 * Here's what I recommend-I can move it to your user space as User:HazppaN/Timeline of European Automobiles where you can work on it: when enough has been filled in to make an article, then I can move it back for you. (You do have the right to request it be restored as is, and I will restore it, but somebody will nominate it for a deletion discussion, and I think it has a good chance of getting deleted., so I don't recommend that.  .  And, it is very highly prefeerred that for this and for the Japanese automobiles article, that you provide  a specific external for each item (I know it's in the linked WP article, but it has to be specifically on this page itself--if there's a single convenient references book, you can use it for all of them)   OK ?  DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh okay, go ahead and put it in my user space, thanks! Someone already nominated it for deletion, so that's pretty concerning for me. As for the external reference to the Japanese timeline... I got this book called "Car Design Asia" with it's ISBN code "ISBN 978-3-8327-9538-2" by "Paolo Tumminelli" with "teNeues" as his website I assume? Could you tell me how to get this specific external going? I'm sorry if I seem inconsiderate putting up pages that are not "manageable", but honestly I am not bothered by it... I just want to note down the automobiles that came out during the years especially the classics and exotics because they are simply worth the noting. There's also Car Design Europe as well "ISBN 978-3-8327-9459-0" for the external for the European timeline.


 * Some people--including myself--think articles of this sort are appropriate for an encyclopedia, but others don't. As WP has no way of ensuring consistent decisions, what can happen to any particular article will unfortunately vary, and there are no guarantees. What does help is making sure that such pages are impeccably sourced, because it's a shame to do the work and then not have it stay in WP. So you ought to be concerned with making these articles as strong as possible. re.  For the Japanese list. List the book as a source, and put the particular place in the book where the dates for each auto is mentioned. The technique is at WP:REFBEGIN, Section 5.2. Don't worry about mistakes in formatting---they cnab e fixed, but get the basic data in. (there should also be a number of other geneal books on the subject)  references. For the European autos, now that it is at afd, I can; just move it to user space, there has to be a community decision, but I have commented there.  DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

RE your PROD Trevor Maynard, I have now properly cited articles from third party newspaper and magazine references, and am in the process of putting in ISBN for all books included. I firmly belief the fact he has published the work of over 170 poets is noteworthy. I am in the process of seeing how many of these have their own wiki pages, or should have. Peteralansoron (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC) User:Peteralansoron peteralansoron
 * It is possible that he may conceivably have ben notable  as a playwright. I suspect you may have a harder time showing his poetry career is significant. I'm rediting it a little to exmphsise the playwriting.  DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment about revising promotional articles, from a user talk p.

 * But this further explains my dissatisfaction with negotiating articles with coi editors. I can revise an article till I think it acceptable, and fair, and informatively describes the subject. . What I can not do and will not do, is revise an article so if makes a more effective presentation of the subject. Presenting the subject effectively  the way they would want to be presented, is the job of PR,  and a perfectly respectable thing to do--elsewhere.  I will not help anyone do it here, and to the extent I edit, I will reduce the article to documented informative material: forsome relevant  examples, if a person's books and awards are listed once, it provides the needed information, and  there is no need to list them twice over. If reviews are cited, there's no reason to pick our the favorable bits. If someone's avocational interests unrelated to notability  are mentioned and linked to a source for further information, there's no need to explain them further.  DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

NYU faculty articles
Hello, I looked over Marisa Carrasco, changed "Publications" to "References" and removed the tags per the talk page comments. The references on the article, and the many not there, are enough to show notability. As noted if there are continuing neutrality concerns they can be addressed on the talk page. Many times I tag or leave comments on article talk pages, in attempts to not be a "drive-by tagger", with plans to revisit. It is made easier when there are comments of substance. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns abouther notability, because. WP:PROF relies on impact, which in the sciences is measure by quotations to her publications.,and the GNG and its baroque ramifications are usually irrelevant. Her citation record does show that, and I'll add them. (somebody should have already, but this is WP). There is nothing wrong with calling attention to WP:PROF articles which may imply notability, but do not show it. Most of the time the ones that need deletion for lack of notability by WP:PROF are also highly promotional, so it is rational to check carefully everything done by a promotional editor. And of course there's a degree of blatant advertising where TNT is applicable, I try to balance that factor with notability, because it is impractical to devote the time to fixing the articles where notability is just borderline.  DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)