User talk:DGG/Archive 155 Dec 2019

Please comment on Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syriac Orthodox Church. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Note about autopatrolled redirects RfC
Hi. Since you participated in the preliminary discussions, I thought I should let you know that I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beeblebrox
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Deskana

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
 * Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news
 * Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous
 * The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Amorymeltzer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=928580131 -->

Removing article creation protection for Freshworks
Greetings. I think the article satisfies WP:NCORP and I have added the references in the draft version of the article. Since the admin who deleted and salted the article is inactive since May, I am contacting you as you previously deleted the article. Kindly go through the draft version and if it is notable or satisfies any of the required conditions, remove the creation protection for the article. Regards, Beastranger (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm QuiteUnusual. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Artur Tamagnini de Sousa Barbosa, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:29:04, 2 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Riaft
Hi David

Thank you for reviewing my new draft Wikipedia entry for the rock band Stone Broken, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stone_Broken.

I have had previous submissions declined as I did not adhere closely enough to the established protocol. However, I sincerely believe that this time I have.

I respectfully do not understand the reason you have given for rejecting my latest submission.

You have said that my references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

I have in fact used credible, independent, secondary reference sources detailing information about significant milestones and events in the history of this band.

I would be extremely grateful if you could find the time to assist me in ensuring that I can make the necessary edits to secure approval for this submission.

Regards and thanks.

Riaft (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Riaft (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

About your notes on Draft:Clockify
Hello, DGG.

You have reviewed my Clockify draft on Nov 25th. You stated that that draft does not "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

I have added one new reference from The Times.

I'm afraid that the chances of reputable online outlets doing an unpaid full feature of a software solution are next to none.

On the other hand, some of the references I have included are at the very top in the news publishing business (The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph).

Do you think it's ready to resubmit?

Mmmaric (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Center for Initiatives in Jewish Education: Why speedy Drafted?
Hi. Can you tell me how the article, with no notice to the editor, merited being speedily DRAFTed? Pi314m (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There was an alternative, which would have been a deletion discussion. I think draftify is a much better option for partially promotional  / borderline notable articles when written by a good faith editor like yourself. All you have to do is improve it and submit. When you do, you can ask me to  review it immediately, or, if you prefer, wait for another reviewer.    DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt explanation. I'm beyond the "don't bite the newbies" even though, compared to your level, I still am. And, to violate the "don't begin the sentence with" rule, there is a teaching Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) about "MiKol MeLamDyy" - I've learned from all ... Once again, thanks. Pi314m (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I already did inline links to what you edited. Please take a look at the current version. I shall condense the wine and poetry vignette now. May I ask you to please condense or reduce other places as you see fit? I shall fix links after you just like the current version.

Thanks so much. QSandai (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I already put in inline links to the version you edited. If you edit some more, I can do the same. Please check the current version. You can see it.

Thanks. QSandai (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I just now went over the whole article and did a lot of cutting. Got rid of redundancies and more. Looks ok to me especially in desktop mode. Please take a look at the current version. If you feel more edit is needed please do so. Otherwise can we publish it? Be nice before New Year. Thanks. QSandai (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: AfC notification: Draft:Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics (LASSP) at Cornell
You commented ""You need to show from 3rd party reliable sources that this is one of the most important laboratories in its field internationally.. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 11:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)." on a draft article that has no mention of being "one of the most important laboratories in its field internationally".

Please explain why it is necessary that we need to find a reliable 3rd party source for a subjective comment that isn't in the article. Thanks LASSPstaff (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * replied on your talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

WikiConference 2019, North America: Following up after our great conversation.
Thank you so much for the time you spent with me reviewing the Laurel C. Schneider submission. The 1000+ Women in Religion Project will be working together to make this article a good model for future new articles about academics that are similar to Dr. Schneider. We just finished our presentations and work with the 1000+ Women in Religion Wikipedia Project at the American Academy of Religion and Society of Biblical Literature. We did an edit-a-thon and a women's biography panel. It was a successful effort. Now I can turn my attention to the suggestions you made on the Laurel C. Schneider article. I plan to be in your area in late January or early February. Perhaps I can convince the librarians at Burke Library at Columbia to set up an edit-a-thon. Thanks again for your kind attention.--Dzingle1 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Student drafts
I'm not entirely clear on how Wikipedia's policies are on this. There are other drafts I was going to make for this student project, but I don't know if it's allowed. Is it?-K-popguardian (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I would put deletion disclaimers once I'm done using them.-K-popguardian (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

+	I would put deletion disclaimers once I'm done using them.-K-popguardian (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC) −	−	I and several hundred other editors and administrators devote many hours of volunteer work towards helping good articles get included in the encyclopedia, and making sure that inappropriate ones do not. In particular, the several dozen highly active editors reviewing Draftspace follow an intricate set of protocols to check material, see that everything goes where it ought to, advise good faith users how to improve their work, and try to persuade and if necessary remove those who would use WP for advertising and editorializing. We are thousands of drafts behind, representing material submitted in some cases as many as 3 months ago. −	There is an accepted place to experiment: see WP:SANDBOX. I have accordingly created a page for you User:K-popguardian/Sandbox which you can use for the purpose. There's another way you can create sample screens: Start a page, enter your content, but do not save it: just show preview. If you accidentally save it, add a line at the top.
 * If I understand the situation correctly you wrote a draft article Draft:Off the Hook (band)  about an imaginary band to use for a student film, and said in the edit summary "To whoever finds this article, I am writing this for a student film and should not be taken seriously. Most likely when you find this I'll have taken enough screenshots so feel free to delete it if you get here."  Presumably your purpose was to have scenes of someone editing this article as part of the film.  This is not an acceptable use of  Wikipedia  . The relevant policy is WP:NOT  section 2.5 item 5. "Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. "

And there's the actually best way to make an article for a film: make a real article on a notable subject.  DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, did over a dozen edits and condensed & removed redudacies. Also condensed vignettes. Looks ok to me especially on PC. Can we get it published please by year end? QSandai (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Kitchenshaming is not a practice some people deal with daily, how can you say it is not notable enough? I think you are a biased reviewer.

Alieneggs (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC) 
 * Yes, I'm biased in favor of articles with good sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Norfolk and Western 611 Draft
Hey, I just noticed that my draft about Norfolk and Western 611 was deleted. Is there a reason why? The reason why I was creating a draft is because I wanted to create a page about the individual steam locomotive, which has been popular for many years and is used in excursion service. The information was previously used on the page Norfolk and Western Railway class J (1941), which I believed caused too much clutter on the page. In addition, a locomotive used in excursion service usually has its own page, which is the reason why I submitted my draft.

Currently, the link to Norfolk and Western 611 is a redirect to Norfolk and Western Railway class J (1941), which is the class the 611 impart of. My goal is to create a page reserved only for 611, which is what the draft represented. The deletion log also stated that the draft was a duplicate; however I do not see a duplicate draft about 611.

--Davidng913 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * there does seem to have been some confusion here in the edit history. I'm restoring the draft for now, and will look further tomorrow. I personally tend to support articles like this, but I know that not everyone does.  DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

draft. Zhang Dinghuan...thanks
Thanks for chopping. I just cleaned up a little after you and put in 2 inline links (no added text). Deleted the Puyi heading. He was just extra I guess. Glad you retained the vignettes. Imho always good for bios. Been busy. Today was the 1st time I checked in several weeks. QSandai (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If it goes into mainspace as it is, I think it is likely to get stubbified, and the only way to prevent it is to first shorten it to a more concise but still informative format.  I think it needs substantially more cutting, and trying to make the wording as compact as possible.    I'm not sure how to incorporate the links to the  files.  Possibly they should go in a section at the end--perhaps as an image gallery.   DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:DC Solar
I saw you had moved this entry to draft space. It is quite notable now as a massive fraud. Lots of coverage. I added some recent sources and noted in the intro the unraveling. How do I get it approved for mainspace? Should I just remove all or most of the rest of what was there? I think it's actually an interesting legacy of a promotional effort and once the reader is informed that it was a fraud the rest is read in that context. I'm not interested enough.to want to invest.oodles.of.time into it or reworking it. I do think we should cover the subject.FloridaArmy (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree it's now notable enough, but I think it needs at least one sentence indicating what happened to the races they sponsored. And to clarify it wasn't the principals who pleaded guilty.


 * As you recognize, this is a dilemma. A company or person that's at most borderline notable as what they pretend  to be becomes much more notable once they're found out.  This makes it difficult to balance the article.  DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Bookaway
Hi DGG

Thank you for reviewing my draft Wikipedia entry for the startup Bookaway.com, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bookaway. It is appreciated!

At your previous review you wrote that the content does not have enough substantial truly independent sources and citations as written to remain published,, and is worded as a promotional article or web page. I polished the contnet, added more credible, independent, secondary reference sources detailing information about significant milestones and events in the history of this company.

I would be extremely grateful if you could find the time to assist me in ensuring that I can make the necessary edits to secure approval for this submission.

Regards and thanks. Yaniv (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , I do not think there is sufficient notability yet for a realistic possibility of there being an article.  I understands you will be disappointed, but it's my obligation to give you an honest opinion based on long  experience of what is likely to be accepted here .  DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Help needed
When you have time, could you take a look at what's going on here. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Tamar Hematite Iron Company acceptance
Hi DGG, I've cleaned up Tamar Hematite Iron Company. When you accepted it using AFCH, it appears to have not automatically completed the process and left the AfC headers. I have removed them for you and thought that I should let you know. Best, The SandDoctor  Talk 19:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks. chronic problem. I need to remember tocheck that it works each time. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

draft Zhang Dinghuan
I already put in inline links to the version you edited. If you edit some more, I can do the same. Please check the current version. You can see it.

Thanks. QSandai (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Abuse at you from anon IP at AfD
I would like to comment on the unnecessary abuse you received at the end of AfD Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla. I believe it was totally unwarranted. I was on the verge of countering it or attempting to get it blocked but in the end rightly or wrongly chose to ignore it (I think there is sometimes advice to consider doing this). Even if we have disagreed on points I have you place neutral comments and subtle advices on the AfD upon which people could hang their arguments. The reason I got alerted to the AfD's was I had the creator of 3 the articles tagged on my talk page which led me to the AfD; I've now removed that page from my watchlist (and yours will be too annoying active to put a watch on it). Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is possible to get me angry here, but it takes much more than that.   Questioning the degree to which I understand the honours system of India is not abuse, for it true I do not understand it as well as their higher educational system.  The AfD  was to see if it would be deleted. That can depend on other factors that the encyclopedic suitability of the subject, and I do not want to waste efforts on articles that ought to be deleted, but won't be.    DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Perplexed
Hi, DGG

I am stuck on the Granite Telecom submission that you declined. Forgive the narrative, but at this point, I think it’s needed so Wiki editors can see what some of us trying to contribute are going through.

Earlier this year, I started prepping for an update a very large industry article in Wiki that identifies key global operators in the telecommunications space. Much of the data was old – including the page’s marquee table at the top of that article that lists all the world’s largest players (defined as US$1B+).

One of the quirks of the telecom operators article was that one of the world’s largest telecom players did not have a Wiki page for a reader to link to in order to learn more about the company. It was not only the only billion-dollar-plus company in the space without an article, it was only one of two providers in the US market over $100 million without a clickable Wiki article.

It turned out that other company has been acquired so I started gathering information on the large player over the course of several months, picked a competitor's article in good standing to use as a template, submitted an article, and then turned to updating the industry article that started me down the path to begin with.

In my original submission I established upfront why the company is important: It’s a $1B+ provider of telecom services that serves 80% of the Fortune 100 companies and is one of 10 providers in the U.S. approved to deliver services to the US government. And then told the story of the company’s founding and all that…

The first editor that came along shot it down. I originally thought he was saying I hadn’t used credible sources. But after inquiry, he said that the issue wasn’t sourcing or whether the company is notable, but that the adjectives used to establish the company’s position that he viewed as “marketing trumpery” and cited some of the passages he didn’t like. He was bizarrely aggressive in his response language and pasted it on my page and the article page and in my query to him.

In any case, I removed all of that language and wrote the editor back, asking if the new edits were acceptable and went back to gathering data for the industry page edit. The original editor never responded to my fixes and archived the discussion without responding. I was thinking the whole time how arbitrary this process is when the original submission was nowhere near as lopsided as 90% of the articles in Wiki. I also thought that stripping the context language out looked more promotional (in my view) than having an actual narrative about the company’s history (because it becomes an accomplishments listing instead of the actual growth story), and that another editor coming along might question the notability of the company, even though it’s a significant company both domestically and globally.

Fast-forward, and I’ve now completed updates to the industry article in a project that has taken dozens of hours to accomplish (because of research needed to update the tables and players). Yet the most obvious need from the entire overhaul -- putting up a reference for the only industry giant without a page -- was just declined for exactly the reasons I worried about when I made changes following the first editor’s objections.

So with this as context, would you mind sharing with me what you think is wrong with the submission so I can try again to get this completed? Having spent a lot of time out here as of late helping to clean up other articles, the vast majority of which are far more gratuitous than anything in my submission, there is an arbitrariness to this process that leaves me stumped. But I don’t want all of this work to go to waste.

Thanks. Technutt (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * the true purpose of AfC is to help get suitable articles; rejecting the unsuitable is secondary. Most of the work at AFC/NPP however has been necessarily on the endless effort of keeping out the unsuitable, and that does bias the way reviewers think. Since you are a good faith editor, and we very badly need good editors in the field of business, I will do what I can to help you fix the pproblems--for this, and your other articles also .  It is very tricky writing about companies, unless they are actually famous. The boundary between promotionalism & informative content can be as much a matter of overall impression--it has to avoid looking like a pres release, and that's a matter of style as well as selection of what to include.


 * As for promotionalism:  1/The entire section on charities is minor; it makes good advertising for the company.  The remedy is to shorten it. 2/The awards similarly-- look at the qualifications for each of them: ... in Massachusetts. list of  best midscale.  list of best for diversity; ...Best Employers for New Grads ; New England's five best healthiest ;  one of 20 ' most promising. .; ; New England's  E&Y ...  Almost all of them list of, not the single highest or best ; almost none of them  national in anything.  Most recent AfDs have considered this puffery. The remedy here is to select the one of 2 most significant.    3/list of products, most of them totally routine. This is a real dilemma, because without knowing this, one doesn't actually know what the company does. I think the solution is to greatly shorten the list in the infobox, but keep the one in the article.  4/ repetition of the company name, instead of "the firm" or "it" --that's easy to deal with.
 * You mention your other articles. I think TPx has somewhat similar problems, such as overuse of the company name, along with details of other than the CEO,  overlinking common words, & list of routine services--all this can be fixed.;  ATLANTIC, again overuse of company name (which by the  MOS should not be stylized in caps within the article),  weak sourcing, use of "one of the" as implying importance---one of the industry's 25 most ... is not impressive, &  similar equivocations "one of the first". I'm not sure how to deal with the weak sourcing, but the rest can be dealt with.


 * notability is the less important consideration. If it seemed lesa promotional, notability might not be challenged. (I often include both because for the usual paid editing I unfortunately mostly deal with, promotionalism  and questionable notability generally go together. ,  I personally would consider the company notable , because  I would support a standard of $200 million revenue for US companies as notable (I used to say $100 million, but times have changed). Your comments above indicate that you agree with me here.  But though I have suggested this many times instead of the sort of source analysis we do at afd, to judge independent and substantial, where almost everything not obvious can equally well be argued either way, the consensus has been very consistently against me. So we have to go by NCORP, which had in practice been getting quite demanding.
 * There is one really good reference, which is Fast Company.  CIO is even more extensive. but it basically consist of the founder saying whatever he cares to--almost all of it is direct quotes from him. Forbes Insights, ditto. Business Wire and Boston Business Journal exist to publish press releases and announcementa, not substantial independent journalism. Channel is a trade publication, &  what it is publishing is essentially interviews and announcements. Huffington Post is not by their staff, but a "contributor" & like all of that part of their publications, not reliable. The rest of the refs are announcements or placements on lists. The problem can be dealt with by seeing if some of the weaker can be eliminated.


 * The true difficulty here is that there are insufficient reviewers to give more than cursory attention to most of the drafts. Since most of the draft do get deservedly rejected, its not easy to spot the ones worth working on. Were you an undeclared paid editor, I wouldn't be trying to help you. Nor would i dod so if I thought you were set on your own wording, as some editors are. So please review these, and then let me know & I will fix it up further.
 * after that, look at your other articles. I'll take a look at them again in a month or two, if you remind me..


 * And, of course, you are correct that most of our other articles in this field--and many other fields-- are much worse than your draft. That's why I think it's important to get the new ones right, because the bad existing ones are being used as examples.  DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Got it. And, thanks. This was enormously helpful. I think the main issue is that Wiki is peculiar in some regards so existing articles become templates (or at least they did for me). If standards are getting tighter, perhaps a popup when a user creates a new article could help both the authors and editors...??? I'm sure all of this has been considered in some way...


 * On the Granite draft, to help with the concerns about the charitable activities section looking too promotional, I repositioned it uder "Culture" so it doesn't look so much like a white-knight callout and cut down the number of references as you suggested. I think the balance is much better aligned with your directions/comments. Let me know what you think. Similarly, the "Awards" listing was changed to industry and professional awards and was cleaned of all the regional/diversity/other awards you indicated could be considered fluff. That result also feels more neutral. For the products listing in the company box, I cut that down by going top level only and leaving subset products deeper in the article, as suggested. Please let me know if these were handled adequately and if there are other areas that need attention.


 * I didn't click "submit again." If I should have, let me know. And again, thank you. I'll look at the other articles as well. Technutt (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

An arb again - congrats or condolensces??
Atsme Talk 📧 23:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on returning to the Committee, David. I'm very pleased about this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sidney Jellicoe
Dear DGG, I am very grateful for your help on several occasions with this rookie. On this time I ask you for recommendations for the article Draft: Sidney Jellicoe, which will be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * seems ok; I accepted it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Question re recently accepted article
Dear DGG:

First of all, allow me to thank you so much for all your patient advice and various modes of editing help for a Wikipedia novice such as I! I have a question, which is probably as addled as all my other dilemmas here have been. I am planning to spend the day working on my Wiki article, particularly the problematic partial or absent references. Do I edit it as it exists now in the public Wikipedia encyclopedia?

Thanks again,

Ahjazzer (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

, please be careful about adding back material that has been removed. As far aas I can tell, the only mterial really needed is references to reviews of his books.  DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability for Boundless Immigration
Hello DGG: I created this page—Draft:Boundless Immigration—and have been working on it for a while now. I am one of the company founders, so I have declared a COI from the start. On December 1st, an unknown editor (Canonicale) came in and made some changes that I don’t think were helpful, and also resubmitted the article, which I was not ready to do yet. This resulted in its third decline. Because you declined it for notability reasons, I hope I can ask you for guidance on that front, since I’ve been struggling with the definition of notability. According to my reading of the guidelines, Boundless has significant coverage in multiple published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the company. Can you help me understand in what way it doesn’t meet the notability criteria? This would be tremendously helpful, and I truly appreciate your time and expertise. Messier6 (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ,   The relevant criterion, as applied to companies, is at WP:NCORP : references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements  Interviews with the founder, in which he explains what he thinks about his own company, are not considered independent. (Builtinsea & Geekwire & TeleCrunch are examples of that)   TC/PCL is a mere mention in an article about a funder. And many ofthe others are articles by or quoting the founder   and thus not independent.
 * As you have probably gathered, from the similar comments of three separate reviewers, it is extremely difficult to make an acceptable article about you own company--and it is even more difficult for a paid editor to do it, as almost none of them follow our rules. When people know enough about you that someone without coi wants to write an article, then and only then will an article be possible.  DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello DGG--thanks so much for your feedback and speedy response. I appreciate your assistance in helping build my knowledge as a Wikipedia contributor, and will certainly keep all of your suggestions in mind. Messier6 (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Cherokee Files entry
Dear DGG,

Thanks for taking so much time and energy ensuring the quality of Wikipedia.

I am writing on behalf of a student of mine who conducted some research on the Cherokee Files (formerly classified correspondence between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea during the critical 1979-1980 period). Together we determined that putting some basic information about these documents up on Wikipedia would be a useful service. Hence, his created page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cherokee_Files.

As we are both neophytes, could you please provide a little more detail as to precisely why the page was declined? The sources used are primarily the actual files themselves. Is there a reason why that is unacceptable? Would the entire entry be more acceptable if he were to rework (or remove entirely) the "Controversy" section?

I hope to be able to use creating Wikipedia pages as a potential student assignment in the future; therefore, the more clarity I can get on what is and is not acceptable will be most appreciated!

Cheers,

Kirk W. Larsen Associate Professor of History Brigham Young University

Kwlarsen (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, or for the publication of source documents, It's an encyclopedia, and everything here is supposed to be based on reliable 3rd party sources.  The analysis of original sources is original research--see WP:OR for our official  explanation of why this is inappropriate here.  As you of course know, the interpretation of original documents requires training and expertise. We do not evaluate articles based on their academic quality,  or judge whether an article summarizing primary sources is a fair summary, for we are a collection of amateurs, and unable to do so.. All that we do is ensure that they are sourced to reliable published 3rd party secondary sources, so the person who wants further information can consult them and evaluate them for themselves.
 * Now, in actual fact, some of us are indeed qualified experts. I've had an academic career in two fields, and although my knowledge of molecular biology is way out of date, my knowledge of publishing and librarianship is current, and I am prepared to make professional judgments in this area, just as I did before I retired from Princeton. But I do not make such judgments here, though I use my knowledge in judging whether sources are reliable.. There are several contributors here who have expertise similar to your in history at various academic institutions. Some of them say so on their user pages; some do not, but I am aware of it because I know them personally-- and some I do not actually know for sure, but can tell from the quality of their analysis. There are other in various fields of the humanities; and there are a considerable number with high qualifications in various fields of science and technology--a few are in fact the leading experts in their specialty. Again, some declare their qualifications; some do not.  And they too do not  publish their research here or that of their students, but use their knowledge to judge whether articles in their areas are in fact sourced from reliable publications.
 * There's a full discussion of this at Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics and especially WP:Expert editors


 * And there is a related project also sponsored by the WMF which is open to original research: Wikiversity -- See Go unto Wikimedia, academics! for an introduction to the possibilities.


 * and there's a new development--what I consider a really exciting and important new development: Though WP is not a place to publish original research based upon primary sources, it has always been a place to publish reviews of published research. There is no intrinsic reason why a review of research cannot be suitable both for an academic journal, and for Wikipedia, though of course considerable modification of format will be necessary.  This has been  developed into a formal program: see WP:Wiki to journal publication.  and WP::Journal to wiki publication.


 * I hesitated a while before deciding what do do about this draft, because I recognize the importance of this material being easily accessible. I think personally that our rule about Original Research might not always be necessary, but I also am aware that if we did start making exceptions,  we would have even greater conflicts on controversial topics than we do now. We can barely handle the disagreements on such topics, and I am therefore  not willing to use here our available policy of WP:IAR, of being able to ignore all rules if necessary to improve the encyclopedia in any individual case.  DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Translating a page
Hi DGG,

I notice my draft page with 'advertising remarks" I just edit and trim all sensitive information, but I am not sure if I did it correctly and how to publish the page? Appreciate if you can give me some advice. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Orion_Land

Amazsara10 (talk) 16 December 2019 <!—Template:Undated--> —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is now whether the draft article   clearly shows notability . It can sometimes happen that if the promotional  material is removed, that thee is not enough left to make an article, and therefore an acceptable article cannot be written. To clarify this, though Chinese sources are OK, you ought to at least translate the titles of the sources you are using as references so people can see what they are. after you do that, let me know, and I will resubmit the draft and let some other reviewer decide.  DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG, Thanks for your quick and clear response. I translate all titles of the sources already. Please feel free to let me know if any I should improve for set up a comprehensive page. Thanks again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Orion_Land
 * Amazsara10G (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2019 (GMT)

JRS
User:Ahjazzer (talk 16 December 19

DGG, I noticed that the "Notability" section in John Rennie Short's Wikipedia page is no longer there. It was in Notability that most of the references that are lacking were located, which is OK, but I'm wondering if this was deliberate. Ahjazzer (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

--Ahjazzer (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * His published works show his notability. The section that was removed was the part that made it promotional . But ifthere are third party references there you can use,do so. If they talk about an individual book, use them as a reference to the title of the book.  DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Please review my article again.
Dear DGG, I have submitted this page but still shows it in the draft. Can you please review it again? The page was earlier deleted on the ground of copyright issue. However, i have rewritten all the page. I also declare that i have no conflict of interest and that i am not associate with Mohammad Kabir hassan in any capacity but i do believe that he is leading authority in the area of Islamic finance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohammad_Kabir_Hassan I will highly appreciate your time and valuable input.

Regards Khan Ishal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan.ishal (talk • contribs) 22:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

== Review My Article, earlier reviewed by youKhan.ishal (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)KhanishalKhan.ishal (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC) ==

I have submitted this page but still shows it in the draft. Can you please review it again? The page was earlier deleted on the ground of copyright issue. However, i have rewritten all the page. I also declare that i have no conflict of interest and that i am not associate with Mohammad Kabir hassan in any capacity but i do believe that he is leading authority in the area of Islamic finance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohammad_Kabir_Hassan

I will highly appreciate your time and valuable input. Regards Khan Ishal


 * note for the record: I acceptedthe revised draft.  DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

==Season's Greeti

Christopher J. Hadnagy
Hello, Mr. Goodman! I tried to do my best to remove all non-encyclopedic information and cited the rest. After a period on incubation and significant changes (I realized there was a lot of non-encyclopedic info in the previous version), I re-submitted the new draft, please, let me know if you find it acceptable. Thank you and happy holidays!--Suchexams (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , add book reviews, remove talks. Books are what count.  DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you,  DGG ! I will work on it while the draft is under review.--Suchexams (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 *  DGG Hello, Mr. Goodman! I got back from my Christmas vacation and took my time to add a few notable book reviews to Hadnagy's draft with new sources added. It has more than 30 citations now and the text has been through significant updates and re-wording, according to your advice. Do you think it should be pending on review list or maybe you can take an extra look and let me know if there are still any issues there? If you say, it is good to go (or not), it might be helpful for a new user like me. I would really appreciate your knowledge and expertise.--Suchexams (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Perspective on an edit
Hi - genuine question regarding your edit here. I had quoted a leading peer-reviewed English historical journal that made a judgement on the quality of the body of work of that academic, thus emphasising that person's notability. You replaced it with text which implies the subject had a personal motivation to the area of work, which is not discussed in the citation (and the interest is ongoing, rather than in the past). Is this a stylistic issue; the use of "considered"? I'm not wedded to the previous text, but just interested in understanding the purpose behind the edit since to my mind it conveys a different meaning not backed by the source and removes mention of the subject's notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thestandard to avoid excessive weight move reviews of specific books to the section on the books, not the lead paragraph. Quoting from reviews is a method subject to abuse, because of cherry-picking. (And reviews even in peer-reviewed academic journals are not normally peer-reviewed. They're intended as a personal comment by an expert, not an addition to the scholarly literature. There are exceptions on rare occasions for particularly extensive evaluative reviews that are actually reviews of a field. But usually an academic journal controls the quality of views by allowing the book author to reply, and, if really necessary in rare cases, publishing a second review. The way to do it is to add the review as a footnote to the book, putting a one sentence excerpt as a quote within the footnote--see WP:CITE.
 * I tend to replace statements of expertise, by the phrase "special interest in". This is totally objective & purely descriptive because if someone has written book about something, they have a special interest in the subject. It doesn't to me apply motivation. But perhaps I should just use "interest in"    DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

2020 Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2020:

The one-year terms of these arbitrators also begin on 1 January 2020:

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions. Xeno has elected not to receive administrator permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2019:
 * will retain Oversight
 * will retain Oversight

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:
 * Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2019 at their own request:
 * CheckUser: Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos
 * Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
 * Both outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
 * Both outgoing arbitrators will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 21:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

please clarify one point of feedback
In your feedback for my article on John F. Kilner, you say to "decrease the amount of personal title." Would you please explain what you mean by that--and preferably suggest how that might best specifically be done in this case? Guitargirl300 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Guitargirl300
 * , remove children & grandchildren, remove student awards. declare coi if present. remove routine memberships; write concisely. And then resubmit.  DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

About Draft:Jürgen Herzog
Good evening this hot summer evening (when and where I am), DDG. First of all, my apologies if I am telling you things you already know. I must admit I share Jovan's concerns, but not up to the point of "a WP:BLP with no references". While there are pointers to good citations in the now draft article's external links section, I think it would have been better if you had converted them to inline citations.
 * This article was started as a draft by Special:Contributions/Somayeh.moradi1 on 14 Dec 2019. I note that this user has no contributions, live or deleted, outside this topic.
 * You moved this article into mainspace on 16 Dec 2019
 * It was moved back into draftspace on 20 December 2019 by Special:Contributions/Jovanmilic97. In an edit summary, Jovan wrote, "this should have never been accepted as a WP:BLP with no references"

On a tangent, while searching for more information, it would appear that there was a Project Euclid Festschrift - in scholarly article not book form - for Herzog in 2013.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no reasonable basis for challenging the article. It clearly met WP:PROF on the basis of the authorship of the books. It was apparently moved on the common misunderstanding of reviews that WP:PROF needs reliable external sources. It does not. It just needs reliable sources, and i even if it were unnecessarily regarded as requiring external sources, the evidence of the books' publication would be such sources  There is no prescribed form for references.  They can be added anywhere in the article in any manner, and if the section is called 'external links" instead, yes, it should ideally be corrected, but the only reason to do so is to decrease misunderstanding. Generally, I do that.  :At this point, I am much more concerned with clearing the AFC backlog--an article is good enough to pass if it is good enough to pass afd. Until recently, I usually improved any AfC I accepted to a moderate standard of conformity in style, but the main need is to deal properly with the articles.
 * I consider our three month backlog a disgrace. I cannot completely remove it even if I did nothing else, for I cannot deal competently with half of the articles--the ones on athletes and musicians, but I am trying to rescue everything rescuable at least in my primary field, science bios, while removing the junk and the advertisements.  DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Pino Concialdi
Hi DGG. I kindly ask you to check the article on the Italian painter Pino Concialdi. I personally think that the encyclopedic relevance is missing. The article contains exclusively local sources linked exclusively to the places where this artist worked, that is in Sicily, region of Italy. --5.171.193.140 (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Page Deletion Question
Hi DGG - I wanted to reach out to you about the deletion of the Steeda page. I chatted with scope_creep (check my talk page) and explained my background. What else can I do to prove that I'm simply trying to better the awareness of the Mustang and automotive industries? Would love to continue making edits and adding to the automotive side of Wikipedia. Thank you and Happy Holidays! -Joe (Joe.sanchez1631 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC))
 * The problem is that there are so many promotional articles submitted, that editors without a conflict of interest need to carefully distinguish their work. Rememeber, a promotional article tells what the subject wants the public to know; an encyclopedic article gives what the ordinary interested reader would expecct to find in an encyclopedia . I'm going to restore the article to draft space as Draft:Steeda. Among the changes that you might want to make is eliminating the rather trivial charitable section, using the name of the company a liuttle less, and removing phrase liker "state of the art" and "expert level" (there are more--I just picked two of the prominent ones.  DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to reply back. I've made your suggested changes (and a few more) and submitted the page for review. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. Merry Christmas! (Joe.sanchez1631 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC))
 * In condensing it, the article seemed to become unclear about just what their lines of business consist of. I tried to straighten it out, but of course I am not sure that I got it right. Could you please check and correct my revision, and let me know.  DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making those changes. I went ahead and cleaned things up a bit and added more clarification. Let me know what you think - thank you. (Joe.sanchez1631 (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC))

G11 declines
Hi DGG -- You and I clearly disagree about quite how promotional articles need to be for G11 to apply. Kaveh Alizadeh appears only very borderline notable and might benefit from a test at AfD. Younan Nowzaradan is, I think, probably notable if only as a television personality, but you could try redirecting to My 600-lb Life and see if you get reverted. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, G11 is somewhat subjective. This is why I do not delete them single handedly, nor think that any admin should., About 5% of my nominations will possibly be errors or overreach, which by itself would be too  high an error rate to be acceptable or fair to the contributors.  But with two people checking each other  that becomes 0.25 % ,which is as good as can be expected. And certainly one person never sees all the opportunities for redirection or merge. I rely on people checking me, & I am glad  that you do so.   DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Nexant Draft Review 2
Hi DGG, I'm not sure if you still remember, but thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback for my draft a couple months back.

Per your feedback, I've rewritten things to be more readable, removed excessive sections, and added a few more sources as well. If you had the time, I would really appreciate if you could take another look to see if I went in the right direction and did it correctly this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nexant

Regardless, I hope you're having a wonderful holiday season so far!

Kind regards, Jasper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.170.65 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing Draft: Forrest Iandola for AfC last month. Your comment was that the subject is notable, but the article is worded too promotionally, and that the article should be worded more concisely with less name repetition. I made some edits in this direction, cutting it down quite a bit. I submitted it for re-review, and the next reviewer said that the subject is not notable. That said, I looked at the reviewer's edit history, and Draft: Forrest Iandola is one of eight articles that they reviewed or edited in a 10-minute period, so perhaps they didn't dig into the references. I can empathize -- I know AFC has a big backlog, and I imagine there is a lot of pressure on AfC reviewers. Anyway, since you initially reviewed the article, and I made the changes that you requested, I wonder if you would be willing to re-review the article. Regards, 104gli (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look. Modifying te article may be a little complciated. I will see what i can do. If I forget, please remind me in a week or two,.  DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * David, Thanks for your reply and for taking a look. Could you clarify what you mean by "modifying the article may be a little complicated?"
 * Also, after looking at the article with fresh eyes, it seems like after I trimmed the article, now the article is saying the same thing over and over again. Rather than the current format with several section headings, it might make more sense to stubify? Here's a draft of what the stub could look like:

Forrest Iandola is an American computer scientist and entrepreneur.

His research focuses on machine learning and deep neural networks. In 2014, he worked with a group at Microsoft Research to develop deep neural networks that automatically generate captions based on the contents of images. In 2015, he co-created DeepLogo, which applies deep neural networks to computer vision based logo recognition. In 2016, he co-authored SqueezeNet, a deep neural network designed for mobile and embedded devices. In 2019, he co-authored SqueezeNAS, which applies neural architecture search to semantic image segmentation.

In September 2015, Iandola co-founded DeepScale with his PhD advisor Kurt Keutzer, and Iandola became the company's CEO. The company develops computer vision technologies for the automotive industry. On September 30, 2019, Iandola stated in a post on LinkedIn that he had joined Tesla as a senior staff machine learning scientist, and on October 1, 2019, CNBC stated that Tesla had acquired DeepScale.


 * What do you think? 104gli (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Georg Wanderer
I am a newbie and Wikipedia isn't as intuitive as one would hope for. I have spent hours trying to properly format references and internet links. In particular, I thought that as long I translated an article from a site, clearly indicated it was not my original work and added a link to that site there was no copy write infringement. Apparently I was wrong. My concern is this article I linked to my article will some day disappear from the source's site. (Note I linked the article again but just can't get the sequencing right to eliminate error messages.

Is it possible and is it allowable for me to download a PDF from the source site (which includes the https embedded in the pdf) and save to my Wikipedia article?

Thanks again.

Brett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Rattle (talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * you should not download a PDF version of a source and upload it to Wikipedia as part of an article, or upload it somewhere else and cite that. Eiher would probably violate copyright. Instead, you could attempt to obtain an archive URL for the source. See Help:Archiving a source for the detailed procedure. The Internet Archive will accept requests to archive a page, or it may have been already archived. Other archive sites may also have already archived the page. In either case, an archive URL can be obtained and used in the citation, to ensure against the source site going dark or changing its content. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way it is "copyright", meaning the right to make copies, not "copy write". Many people misunderstand this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I followed from your Teahouse post to note this question. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The other thing you may not realize,, is that when something is subject to copyright, the copyright extends to the right to publish a translation also. A translation of something has two copyrights, the copyright of the original author , and the copyright of the translator.  DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Contest for undeletion BetKing
Page like Bet9ja is not deleted here, then why BetKing, May be you should just help by improvement tags not the deletion tags. If may be the page look like Advertising page. Please just the improvement tags not deleting tags, the page will be improve soon. Thanks 11:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by F5pillar (talk • contribs)

1. The automatic notices left on your user talk page were a little confusing, due to my error. I did not intend to delete it myself; I listed it for potential deletion, letting some another admin make the decision, as I and almost all admins usually do--it's better for two people to look at it. Unfortunately, I made a slip of the mouse, and clicked the box to actually delete it myself. I immediately realized my error, restored the article, and listed it for another admin in the usual manner. Another admin did the actual deletion, and, technically, he is the one responsible for the decision. 2. But I certainly think it merits speedy deletion; the company does not yet have any notability, and part of the article is about the terms for investors. 3. The other article you mention was listed for a deletion discussion in 2015. The discussion did not reach a consensus, and the article was therefore kept. I did not participate in that discussion--if I had, I would probably have argued for keeping the article, as the 4th largest website of any type in the country, and subsequent additions to the article have made its notability clearer as the sponsor of major sports teams. 4. I see that you are an experienced editor, and I am therefore willing to move the page to draft space if does not object. If he doesn't say to the contrary, I will move it in two days.  DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DGG, you can move it whenever you like.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Stanza Living
Hi DGG, Thanks for your review will update the page and ask for your further suggestions. Happy Holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital1804 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Lotus Picking Song, citations etc.
I'm returning to this article. Thank you for your comments. It was a work in progress and I just filled in the glaring gaps in the citations.

1. There are numerous translations of this Li Bai poem. I cited two, one of which cites two more. The one I use is free verse more faithful to Li's mood imho. Other translations are more literal and maybe stilted. The notes are translation of a Chinese site qq discussing the poem.

2. The Mahler stuff are all from the Wiki "Das Lied" which is very long with many sections. The choral text translation is also from it. Note that by necessity it is different from the Bethge's Die chinesische Flöte.. The German choral text can easily be added if you think it will be good.

3. The Bethge source can also be added as well as the French source(s). If you can do the German translation, that will be great. I certainly cannot do it. I can handle the French. Adding the sources ups the level of the page.

4. If we add 3 above, the other songs in Das Lied become candidates as well.

I would be delighted to work with you on some pages. But my pace is sporadic and unpredictable.

Anyway Happy New Year.

QSandai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Dec 27, 2019 I basically finished it with more references and direct links to Mahler sources without quoting the German. QSandai (talk)
 * Submitting it for publishing. Would appreciate your looking at it since your prominent top of page warning may deter others.

Thanks and Happy New Year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QSandai (talk • contribs) 16:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again. As for translations being copyrighted, if I understand you, someone's translation of the original work is subject to the copyright applied to that original work. I still thought that my reference to the article and own text explaining that the information came from that article was clear enough to define it was not my verbiage and credited the source. I recall quoting works (lengthy quotes at times) from original works in university and including the appropriate reference to that scholarly paper or book and it was acceptable. Have things changed since 2005? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Rattle (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * our rules are different from a university. At a university, you can include the material because of the copyright provision of Fair Use, which permits many things, including using even long excerpts of that sort in an academic paper. At Wikipedia , we do not permit material which is only OK because of the Fair Use provisions, and insist on it being either public domain, or licensed according to WP:CC-BY, which permits anyone in the world to use it for any purpose.
 * the reason for this is that it was deciding back at the beginning in 2001 that we would make an encyclopedia free for everyone to us, where everything in it is free for anyone in the world to use for any purpose, even commercially. Most commercial use and and many other types of use to do fall under the US Fair Use provisions, and many countries in the world do not permit Fair Use at all, or permit it only with much greater restrictions than the extremely generous and permissive US law. Thus, for everyone to be able to use everything in the encyclopedia, we need to insist on a free copyright.
 * However, as short excepts of a line or two are probably reasonable fair use or its equivalent anywhere in almost any context, they're OK as an exception. Our rules are at WP:Fair use--but let me warn you that, like many Wikipedia rules, they are exceedingly complicated and not necessarily consistent. Frankly, it takes long experience here to learn beyond the basics, and the way to learn is to be guided by those who do know a little, and to ask questions, just as you are doing.  (And if I have myself stated somethign wrong, someone more experienced with copyright will see this and tell me. We learn from each other.). DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Smith Carter
You realize Smith Carter has not existed since 2014, so no, it's not "PR". Everything that has a POV has been attributed to the relevant RS including architectural historians. That they were good at what they did and had a major impact on the city and the region is not my opinion. Please make more specific criticisms or suggestions on the talk page. I cannot be expected to make adequate edits based on vague assertions. Or else make some changes yourself. I am absolutely willing to work with anyone who makes constructive criticism etc., but I can't be expected to make guesses based on that tag.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"This article reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism." -I see no examples of the former but I'm happy for you to point them out. As for the latter, no, not at all. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the use of quotes of praise about how excellent the work is, especially in the lede, is indeed the problem. That they are sourced is no justification, because it's generally possible to cherry-pick, and this is one of the primary  devices of paid promotional  writers here. A NPOV bio should look different.  The simple statement of the awards makes the point much better. Thats why the tag I used is "reads like a press release " not "this is an advertisement"   DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede is practically identical to Dennis H. Carter and no one has brought that up. The people quoted are experts in the field and these are stated facts, not praise. They had that impact on the city. They built most of the major buildings downtown. They advocated the things they did. etc. Copying this to article's talk page and pinging two editors, one specialized on Canadiana the other on architecture.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review
Thanks for reviewing my AFC submission. I have another one awaiting review. Draft:Enlight Quickshot Would you mind taking a look? Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Andres Soto
I disagree, nominate it for deletion if you wish. Perhaps it can be merged with Richmond Progressive Alliance so people interested in Richmond politics can look him up and see what he's all about.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * actually,, I think that would be a very good solution. If you do this, you can make a redirect from the name, and then people will find the infromation. If it has been already deleted, you can still make a redirect.  DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK thank you, I will work on in, I have been spending my time rewriting Jim Rogers (California politician) how did I do? And also improving Richmond City Council (Richmond, California). But I will find the time now off to put away the dry dishes.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am now working on the RPA article ASAP because it is under threat of being deleted itself even though two books have been written about it, the article is admittedly in poor shape but there are tons of references around, care to help me expand? Also where is the Andrés Soto article in my draftspace I cannot find it!Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The Soto page is at Draft:Andres Soto


 * What the RPA article needs is one or two good thir party references. I would guess there are articles in the Bay Area newspapers.  DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 17:36:21, 28 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Krystian.Kaczor
Howdy DGG, I edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Larman as you proposed. Please, review the changes.

Krystian.Kaczor (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , what is now needed is for the material in the article on Larman to be referenced. Every statement or group of statments must have a reliable source, and every thing that might possibly be a matter of judgment needs a third party reliable source. This needs to be done right away--unreferenced material in a BLP is likely to be removed.  DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , I put the reference to the book (They were first published in the [1]2016 book.) Isn't that enough?

--Krystian.Kaczor (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Article for Deletion
Hi David, I see that you were the one who proposed deletion for an article on Frederick Goold in August 2018, and the result at the time was "no consensus". I am just letting you know that I have renominated this article for deletion here.. I think you were right to raise it, and the additional sources provided at the time did nothing to establish notability. I have also proposed two others for deletion for the same reason here and here  -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll comment. on one, to say: But there is a solution: redirect to the archdeaconry, which has been done in a few cases, and in that article give a complete list, not jut of the ones who happen to have been picked up here.  DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea, thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Pi314m, Thanks
First, Thanks. (Gen. 29:35, birth/naming of Judah). Not just for your patience re CIJE/Center but for the advice you wrote on my Talk Page. (Yes, I know that excessive use of capitals is likely to lead to promo-type thinking, but I don't want to use exclamation points- that, somehow, seems worse).

As for CIJE/Center, if I needed a "swift kick" then speedy was a better prod than WP:PROD. I know that the-other-is-worse / there's-stuff-out-there is a poor excuse, or better yet not at all an excuse. I also know of your battle against promo, and I'd rather have fewer words, if it's non-promo. The topic deserves a good job. I've been looking at their 1990s, since it's the foundation for why the organization(s) were founded/funded. Again, thanks. Pi314m (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. 1990
Microsoft was founded 1975. From 1990 to 2019 is 29 years. To not include companies founded after 1990 (unless ((de))drafted) would have meant omit Microsoft until 2004 (1975+29). No article about MS DOS until 2004, let alone Windows, XP, or even Windows 7? To have Wikipedia become known as too hard to find stuff there would simply cause the first stop to be something else; speedia, speediac and speedyak .com are already taken. This P.S. is not meant to disagree in principal, but rather to note that the goal will take more work. Pi314m (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

1. I didn't speedy because I wanted to call attention dramatically; I speedied because I thought and continue to think it is necessary to start over from scratch. I never meant to imply there should not be an article, but there's a long way to go for NPOV. I'm not going to discuss specific content here--see the article talk p. 2.I have never advocated not covering new companies or organizations, tho a few people have--some because they want to avoid POV conflicts, some to avoid promotionalism, some for the greater dignity of an encyclopedia. There's a great deal of promotionalism in articles about older organizations, and I've been working systematically on some fields, like law schools. The idea of focussing on the new organizations is to focus attention, not limit it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)