User talk:DGG/Archive 145 Feb. 2019

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)

Island Company Rum
Why the deletion based off of "unambiguous advertising or promotion"? The way I wrote the article mirrored countless other alcohol brands. Everything in the article was factual based off of research and public sites. Please help me understand your thinking on this please... thanks Sebfynn (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * quite a few of our existing articles in this area are essentially advertising, accepted in earlier years when our standards were lower. It will be a long time until we remove them all, but the least we can do is not add to them. The basic idea is that if it would do for a company web page or press release, it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia .  In this case it was a straight advertisement, containing mostly advertising slogans and other promotional material. I notice you also attempted to add essentially the same material to the article on its proprietor; another editor has removed it, and I have removed yet more promotional material from it and your other articles, all of which are on one person and his company.    DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Enterprisey • JJMC89
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg BorgQueen
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svgprisey

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
 * Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
 * A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news
 * A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sofia Carson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sofia Carson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Rescuing Draft:Kenneth Calhoun
I noticed that you restored Draft:Kenneth Calhoun. Do you believe you could rescue the topic based on this version? That was my attempt to salvage it. My effort was disliked both by the original author, who seemed to want the article to be more like something a publicist would write, and by the next reviewer, who wanted a dry recitation. From there the draft sank into a downward spiral of the original author hacking it down and reviewers not seeing notability in the shrinking draft.

I believe the sources and further reading in my version demonstrate notability. The prose may be terrible, and some of the personal detail can seem irrelevant at first, but later it ties into his writing. The more complete biography hits the points that the sources noted, and better serves our readers than baldly stating that he won prizes X, Y, and Z, without any explanation of how he arrived there or where his work springs from. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * some of should be reinserted, and the reviews moved from the further reading to the main text, but the criticism that this was overdetail is I think correct. I do not know if it will pass AfD, as there's only 1 significant reviewed book, but it will be worth a chance there. You might want to give it a try yourself and let me know.  DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and help: advert tag to UCHealth article
UCHealth

Hi there,

Thanks so much for your edits on the UCHealth article. I understand them and it helps me be a better contributor.

I have gone through and changed or deleted anything that might be considered promotional or not written in a neutral voice. Would you mind taking a look and making any suggestions on how further to improve so that it doesn't sound like an advertisement? To me, the language seems pretty straight-forward, so I'd love your insights.

Thanks, --D&#39;Nezzy Smith (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I restore one paragraph of basic facts that you had omitted ,and removed minor awards. There are so many potential awards available,that any hosopital will have a few of them. The USNew award has also sometimes been challenged, but i left it in, because its the most widely known.

LLAs additional information, it would be useful to add the size of each of the constitutent hospitals--bed number is sufficient.
 * The next problem is to complete the references l use WP:REFBEGIN as a guide. Each reference must show the author of the item if available, and must always give title of the article, where it was published, the date of the item,  and the link, and show the date you accessed it to check  DGG ( talk ) 10:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. I'll fix the citations. Appreciate your help so much! --D&#39;Nezzy Smith (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've updated the references to show the information you laid out above. Working on bed numbers for the hospitals. Thanks so much for your help!D&#39;Nezzy Smith (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I also re-added the Magnet designation as it is a prestigious award. I worded and positioned it similarly to other hospital articles, like UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital, Summa St. Thomas Hospital, and Yale New Haven Hospital. Does this work? Thanks again. D&#39;Nezzy Smith (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It may be reasonable to keep the magnet hospital line--I'll check further & take a look.  DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * BUT, it is often a not a very good idea to copy existing WP articles (other than those labelled GAs (Good Articles) or FA (Featured articles), because a great many of the articles presently in WP were added in earlier years when standards were lower, and, if they are not a topic popular with WP editors, may never have been improved since.  The edit histories of most articles show dozens or  hundreds of very minor changes, mostly in routine updates or details of format, but rarely any attempt at major improvement. For example, Yale and Colorado articles are outrageously promotional, and I will deal with them. The StThomas article is generally low quality and  the hospital may not be notable.
 * I routinely systematically review existing articles field by field in categories where I know there is widespread promotionalism in WP. I'm currently doing law schools. Possibly I shall do hospitals next. (the simplest distinction, is that in encyclopedic articles the ratings go at the bottom, not the top, & are not given in detail .Like awards, they are of primary interest to the prospective patient, not the general reader. )  DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Totally get it. Will use the GA or FA filter from now on. I really appreciate your patient explanations. D&#39;Nezzy Smith (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
Hello DGG. At outreach:Wikipedian in Residence your Wikimedian in Residence project at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts still has the information "under construction" as project page. Could you please link to the project page at outreach so that everyone interested can learn about your project? Thank you so much, --Gereon K. (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * actually, I haven't been doing it for several years now,and I'm not sure whether or not I will be able to return. DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, yes, but I think it would be nice if the Wikimedian in Residence list on outreach would contain a link to the project (no matter if it's up to date or from 2012), so that interested readers could learn about the project. --Gereon K. (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Ireland Reaching Out
Hi. Back in 2013, an article was deleted with this title, and then protected from recreation due to the banned user recreating the article. Today, there is Ireland Reaching Out (organization) on the NPP list. Not sure if this is another attempt by the banned user, but the article appears to be about a notable organization, but the title really shouldn't have the dab. The article creator is a new editor (began in Dec 2018), but doesn't seem to have interest in the same articles as the banned editor. I can't move the article to the appropriate title however. Could you remove the protection please.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * much better article. Moved.  DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed this. Thanks. Onel 5969  TT me 13:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Page restoration
Hi DGG, need some help with an article I wrote John Franzese Jr. At some point someone decided to redirect that page without any sort of discussion and I certainly want there to be one as the author, a redirect like that was in my opinion bold but inappropriate as there was sourcing and a clear claim to notability. I can only see the page move at this point so I need admin assistance on restoring the article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:DGG have you had a chance to review this matter? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reversed it, because you have the right for it to be reversed. The redirect could and should have been carried out in such a way that earlier edits were not deleted. But it's my opinion that notability is borderline, and you will need to anticipate the likelihood of an AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood and I have no problem there. I actually plan on beefing up the sourcing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #5
Welcome to the fifth newsletter for the new Growth team!

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

New projects for discussion
We began the "Personalized first day" project with the welcome survey so that we could gather information about what newcomers are trying to accomplish. The next step is to use that information to create experiences that help the newcomers accomplish their goal – actually personalizing their first day. We asked for community thoughts in the previous newsletter, and after discussing with community members and amongst our team, we are now planning two projects as next steps: "engagement emails" and "newcomer homepage".


 * Engagement emails: this project was first discussed positively by community members here back in September 2018, and the team how has bandwidth to pursue it. The idea is that newcomers who leave the wiki don't get encouraged to return to the wiki and edit.  We can engage them through emails that send them the specific information they need to be successful – such as contact from a mentor, the impact of their edits, or task recommendations.  Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns.  Do you think this is a good idea?  Where could we go wrong?
 * Newcomer homepage: we developed the idea for this project after analyzing the data from the welcome survey and EditorJourney datasets. We saw that many newcomers seem to be looking for a place to get started – a place that collects their past work, options for future work, and ways to learn more.  We can build this place, and it can connect to the engagement emails.  The content of both could be guided by what newcomers say they need during their welcome survey, and contain things like contact from a mentor, impact of their edits, or task recommendations.  Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns.  Do you think this is a good idea?  Where could we go wrong?

Initial reports on newcomer activity
We have published initial reports on each of the team's first two projects. These reports give the basic numbers from each project, and there are many more questions we will continue to answer in future reports. We're excited about these initial findings. They have already helped us define and design parts of our future projects.


 * Welcome survey: the initial report on welcome survey responses is available here. Some of the main findings:
 * Most users respond to the survey, giving it high response rates of 67% and 62% in Czech and Korean Wikipedias, respectively.
 * The survey does not cause newcomers to be less likely to edit.
 * The most common reason for creating an account in Korean Wikipedia is to read articles—not for editing—with 29% of Korean users giving that responses.
 * Large numbers of respondents said they are interested in being contacted to get help with editing: 36% in Czech and 53% in Korean.
 * Understanding first day: the initial report on what newcomers do on their first day is available here. Some of the main findings:
 * Large numbers of users view help or policy pages on their first day: 42% in Czech and 28% in Korean.
 * Large numbers of users view their own User or User Talk page on their first day: 34% in Czech and 39% in Korean.
 * A majority of new users open an editor on their first day – but about a quarter of them do not go on to save an edit during that time.

Help panel deployment
The help panel was deployed in Czech and Korean Wikipedias on January 10. Over the past four weeks:


 * About 400 newcomers in each wiki have seen the help panel button.
 * About 20% of them open up the help panel.
 * About 50% of those who open it up click on one of the links.
 * About 5% of Czech users ask questions, and about 1% of Korean users ask questions.

We think that the 20% open rate and 50% click rate are strong numbers, showing that a lot of people are looking for help, and many want to help themselves by looking at help pages. The somewhat lower numbers of asking questions (especially in Korean Wikipedia) has caused us to consider new features to allow people to help themselves. We're going to be adding a search bar to the help panel next, which will allow users to type a search that only looks for pages in the Help and Wikipedia namespaces.

How to create a good feedback page?
What is the way to built a good help page? What blocks you when writing an help page? Your replies will help to create better help contents to newcomers, that would be used on Help panel.

'' Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot, 14:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC) • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. ''

Please comment on Talk:Christopher Nolan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christopher Nolan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Article that you reviewed: Nebraska Rainwater Basins
Besides the fact that it duplicated Rainwater Basin, it contained copyright material and two of its sources were simply a paper and presented at a meeting and a poster sesssion and thus fail WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * {{U|Doug Weller}, glad you caught it. I should have checked further.  DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Scarpy (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Quincy D. Newell
Regarding Quincy Newell (See Hamilton College faculty bio link), U. of Illinois Press's Mormon Studies Review's new co-editor - notable?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * borderline. Only 1 book so far. Trying to write an article will likely provoke a discussion over whether that's a major journal.  DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Death of Amanda Froistad / Moderation Management - internal copying
I can't see the deleted article Moderation Management, but I'm concerned from the report an ANI and comments like "Update wording now that this is a stand-alone article" and particularly "Here’s another paragraph rescued from Moderation Management’s history" that we have a copyvio problem with your deletion of Moderation Management assuming Death of Amanda Froistad is not also deleted. Remembering that our licences requires the list of contributors is kept, the norm for Copying within Wikipedia is that the history for any article which content was copied from should be kept. (We could simply copy the list of contributors to the talk page, but this isn't generally considered best practice.) If the "death of" article is kept, I recommend Moderation Management is undeleted and either moved to a subpage of the death of article, or simply history merged with it depending on which works best. I recognise that part of the problem is that if the content was copied, the copying was fairly poorly marked in the edit summary, I've spoken to the creator about this. If you're not sure how to handle this that's fine. Let me know and I'll speak to someone else if the article survives AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , It's been a long-standing dilemma  how to deal with deleted versions that have been used in other articles.  In my personal opinion the only satisfactory solution is to be a little more relaxed about attribution (we could then say, partly based upon now deleted edits by Users X, Y, and Z). However, I am aware that the consensus is to take a more rigid approach to this sort of detail. So when a problem involves copyright details which I think absurd, I let those who think such problems have a real existence deal with it. (and I have never successfully completed a history merge; I've stopped even trying).  DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)