User talk:DGG/Archive 157 Feb. 2020

AfD of Robert Olson
Hi DGG. Since you recently reviewed Draft:Robert A. Olson and made comments about the subject's notability, and you've also been working on the Biografer cleanup, I thought you might want to know about Articles for deletion/Robert A. Olson. BTW, I thought in the case of this particular article, it had been rephrased enough so that it wasn't a G12 of the NYTimes death notice cited in the article (like many other of these creations were), but you may have a different opinion on that. Cheers! – Levivich<

AfD control of bulk nominations
Hi DGG. I see you often at AfD and know that you think a lot about it.

Over the last week, I have seen two "bulk-noms" of articles to AfD (which you have probably also seen); one being of 's US GEO stubs, and another being of 's WWII German BLPs. Both have resulted in each author leaving the project (at least for a period). While the noms were in good faith, they were "technical" articles where more than simple searches for GNG were needed (e.g. Onel5969's stubs had some confusion a reading of USGA listings as they applied to GEO, while Scope creep's BLPs needed sourcing from offline sources and de-WP). Such AfDs can accumulate easy Delete !votes, while the Keeps hunt for references and sources; and some Keeps will have a finite time capacity for the number of articles they can/will participate in.

My question is whether we should have some kind of rule that a single author can only have say 2-3 of their articles nominated at AfD at a given time – unless an admin explicitly gives consent for more, and such consent only being for egregious cases of PROMO/COI/UPE/SPAM etc. The logic being that a nom could not swamp/overwhelm a creator at AfD, and that it might prompt noms to get more buy-in/have more discussion with the author to other options (e.g. merging articles into other head articles/lists etc.). Also, the outcome of the first AfDs, will greatly inform all parties on the likely trajectory afterward.

I suggest this because the potential long-term loss of either of these two above established editors vastly exceeds any considerations about whether their nominated articles should stay or go in WP (they are not egregious violations by any means). We would not need to program this rule into AfD (although maybe later), but at least an article creator could "press the panic button" if they saw lots of their articles at AfD, and give them time to gather themselves, see if they can build support/consensus etc., and reflect on how the first AfDs progress.

Is that a mad idea? Britishfinance (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * . apologies for the delayed response.


 * whether this is a good idea depends on the circumstances. Sometimes the articles are truly indistinguishable in nature, and can be nominated together in one AfD. Experience has shown this is correct only in special situations, because most groups claimed to be indistinguishable turn out not to be if anone looks carefully. --there is often notability for some of them or some special reason,
 * There is an an advantage from putting them together--people interested in one are likely to be interested in all, and there's a better chance of getting informed participation. The problem is notification: Very few people pay attention to every AfD.  We have made a some advances gradually over the years of notifying active projects about AfDs in their area, but it for inactive projects and obscure topics it's a matter of chance. (It's true, though, that  this can sometimes have the paradoxical effect of attracting people with by and large a common view, as contrasted to the general interests of active Wikipedians).
 * Doing them one at a time over a long period there is very likely to be low participation and inconsistent deletions.
 * My advice, and my practice, is to run trial nominations of two or three representative articles in order to test what the consensus is, or see if consensus is changing. Such nominations can in effect set guidelines, and are much more effective if there is a comprehensive argument including all likely people. After that, then it's easier to see what to do about the others.  So rather than prohibiting grouped nominations, perhaps we need an RfC -like system for attracting attention to them.


 * Now, about these groups of deletions. The geography ones seem to have been decided in a reasonable way. The WorldWar II ones  were mostly decided in a reasonable way also. Each article in both groups was discussed at length, and attracted a reasonable number of participants who were interested in the subject field and the notability questions involved.
 * I consider them good examples of doing it right,.  DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that DGG, and I appreciate you taking the time to consider fully and respond. Makes sense to me now.  Kind regards, Britishfinance (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

general notes on mass actions

 * More generally, there has been a trend to mass actions when a problem arises. This started with a decision 10 years ago to remove all unsourced BLPs. The non-zealots were able to get this carried out gradually and relatively few worth saving were lost. It has more recently happened with unedited Google translations done by the Translation tool, and here it affected so many fields that most of the high-priority articles were rescued.  It happens about once a month with the discovery of a major sock-puppet, especially  paid ones and those   whose work has gone back many years. . Since there is complete consensus we do not want sockpuppets, few people try to rescue these. I sometimes do, especially because some of the non-paid people have also written decent articles.
 * Even more generally, WP is prone to moral panic When a problem we hadn't seen but should have seen arises, then based even on a single case, people take very drastic measures. This occurs in Real Life also--a crime by a single person once changed the course of a Presidential election.   DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

could you be so kind as to comment Re my request for help
here? If so, thank you so very much, Mr. DGG --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Advice on how to edit 'Ceramic art'
Hi DGG. Could you please advice about the following? A month ago I created a wiki page 'Lodi ceramics', which you approved. I would now like to edit the page 'Ceramic art', section 'History', subsection 'Europe'. I could add a sentence about Lodi ceramics in the Tin-glazed pottery sub-sub-section, but this sub-sub-section is so short that it would be much better to improve this section about tin-glazed pottery adding details about Italy and the 17th-18th century at least. However I don't have enough knowledge. Adding just a sentence about Lodi ceramics feels like adding a details to a background that is missing. Alternatively, I could add a section at the bottom of the History-Europe section, titled 'Pottery in Italy', and just add the wikilink to Lodi ceramics. Similar sections already exist for Germany, Austria and Russia. What do you advice? Thanks in advance --Arkie Hodge (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , do both. There's nothing wrong with a short section if it's in parallel with other sections. But in addition make links from the Lodi article. Within limits, the more cross-referencing the better,.

Try to provide for all the possibilities  DGG ( talk ) 09:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Christopher J. Handagy
I inadvertently put this in December, 2019 and then I realized it is January, 2020=))
 *  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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_J._Hadnagy

Suchexams (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , you need at least to make the references a little fuller using the citeweb template to show where the reference comes from. Then the book reviews should be used as references for the books, using the quote=parameter of the cite template. I'll come around in a week and show you, if you haven't done it.

Also, take a careful look about wherethe reviews are comingf rom. some are more reliable than the others.  DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Annette Carson
I have taken on board the comments made by you and others relating to this article, made appropriate changes, and moved to mainspace. Can you please review and remove the rejection notice.

Thank you. The Retiree (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have commented further on your talkpage.  DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Tags on Pamela E. Harris
Hi! I saw you put some tags on the new article on Pamela E. Harris. I was just wondering if you could explain further. I thought that the several in-depth independent sources published over the span of 2 years would easily make her pass WP:GNG. I also don't see how this article could be described as WP:SENSATIONAL. Would be very grateful if you could provide and explanation and/or suggest what you would want to see improved to get the tags removed. Thanks! Achaea (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You will notice I did not nominate it for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The first notice is one of our standard multi-purpose notices, which, like so many of our notices , unfortunately does not specifically describe the situation. The relevant part is that I consider it written in a promotional  style, suitable more for a web page than an encyclopedia. For example, it omits listing her published work.
 * 2) The second is that I do not think she meets WP:PROF. She is not yet notable as a researcher. Most of her papers are uncited by other mathematical papers., except her own., or cited only for other reasons than the mathematics.It is possible to meet itWP:PROF as a teacher, but the awards are junior-level.  But she apparently has received enough notice to meet the general notability standard, WP:GNG, which even for an academic is an alternative.

A kitten for you!
Thank you so much for approving my article! I worked hard on it!

Florence Hansen (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 

Copyright question about linking to articles through Semantic Scholar
DGG, there is some disgreement on the understanding of whether PDFs can be pointed to via the open access tool Semantic Scholar through the WMFLabs OABOT, and I would value your thoughts on this. Can you see the discussion on the Reliable sources Noticeboard and offer your thoughts on this? It relates to a number of reverts to my edits where another editor stated that using those sources is a copyright violation. I want to avoid copyright violations at all costs on Wiki, but am getting conflicting interpretations of this. Thank you. --- FULBERT (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen it. Copyright paranoia. My view of appropriate copyright policy is so far different from the self-righteous one prevalent here, that I usually avoid discussions on the subject. I just get frustrated.  DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi DGG, thank you so much for your advice and guidance on rewriting this draft. I really appreciate your help. I rewrote the article based on your feedback and comments. I mostly tried to make it more neutral and “encyclopedic” and took out some content to shorten it and highlight the most important parts of his research. Would you mind taking a look at the revision to see if I made the correct changes? I am happy to go back and make further edits based on your feedback. Any advice is greatly appreciated! Thank you! Marissascavuzzo (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Eli Schechtman
Thank you for your help! Please, see my new version!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki82esh (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * this will take a few days. In the meantime, please double check for grammar, particularly tense. And I cannot quite identify just what prize the PM gave him.  DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Resubmission
Hi DGG, thank you for your previous suggestions about Draft:Magnum Research Limited. I have updated third-party sources and added more information (e.g. product lines, cooperations, and licensing) to the page. Could you please review the draft page again, or let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article?--Ria-TAN1995 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Resubmission of Draft:V-Nova
Hi DGG,

Many thanks for reviewing my first draft of this page. I hope I have understood the feedback correctly and addressed it in my resubmission. If anything remains unsatisfactory I would be very grateful if you can let me know what is specifically the problem. Similarly your input on ways to improve the page would be appreciated.

Thank you. IlanAstrug (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

new version
Thank you for your help! Please, see my new version "Draft:Eli Schechtman" Wiki82esh (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sebby Frazer
Hi DGG.

How did you come to review Draft:Sebby Frazer. It was not submitted. Do you patrol new pages in draftspace? Is that usual?

This goes to the question of why do anything with things like this. If you did not MfD it, wouldn't it have been nominated for G13 in six months with zero page views? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Certainly I review new pages in Draft space—it is one of the options at Special:new pages. I look for several things. 1/material that must be removed or even oversighted  2/the very worst of the  playing around   3/the most outrageous of the advertising, especially if they look like undeclared paid editors      4/reasonably acceptable pages from people who abandon them and that either can go in right away or at er a copy edit or two,

My view is that the sooner the better the top and bottom of the pages are dealt with the easier it will be later on for everyone. This is especially true for the attempted "contributors" whom we need to very strongly discourage—they should be dealt with right off.

Opinions vary about how drafts should be handled, just as with everything else here. We do not know what really works best, or even if there is one way that works best. We not only can tolerate a great deal of variation, we should have a great deal of variation and experimentation, as long as we don't confuse the beginners or make contradictory statements about policy.  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * as long as we don't ... make contradictory statements about policy.
 * I have been wondering, am I being chided about making contradictory statements about policy? These statements were at WP:MFD, a place without much exposure to readers, or even to the average editor. I think the statements came from a disagreement of interpretations, and such disagreements should be aired at suitable forums, like that, and then it was immediately resumed at the linked discussion at WT:CSD (where, you were proved correct). If you think it desirable for me to strike old misstatements, please say so, and I will likely do so.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * -- sorry -- I nothing specific in mind here.
 * that was just meant as a general statement to pagewatchers.  DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Eli Schechtman copyvio
I've rewritten a paragraph in Eli Schechtman that was copied from the YIVO Encyclopedia article on Schechtman: the paragraph beginning "Although Shekhtman received several Israeli literary prizes", added in this edit by an IP (who I suppose may or not the same person as the editor predominantly responsible for the draft). Do you think you could have a look through the article for any other passages that might have similar issues? There are some close-ish paraphrases I think, but I was hoping to just do a quick copyedit and don't really have the time to look into it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I had done a check against the print version, but I may have missed something., so I will check again.  DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)



Draft: Paul J. Tesar
Hi DGG, Thank you so much for taking the time to review and provide comments on my draft. I’m really sorry the article is lacking. I tried to be responsive to the first reviewer’s comments to substantiate notability, but perhaps the edits went too far in the other direction. I would really appreciate your expert advice in improving the page. Your comments are very helpful, and I will work on rewriting the article in a more encyclopedic format. Please let me know what else I can do to improve the article. Marissascavuzzo (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

, first step is to answer my question---since the article is written tin the promotional style usually association with press releases, (for example, ...Tesar transitioned directly into an independent position back in his hometown... ; or  talking about the many possible medical applications of the general field in which he works,  )   you need to say if you have some conflict of interest, as we define it at WP:COI; in particular, if it should be the case that this involves payment of if you are in any way connected with his company or any firm working for it, you need to declare fully according to WP:PAID. And have you ever used any other username here?  DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi DGG! Thank you so much for your feedback and comments on the draft. I’m studying at the university and in the lab. I know Paul well, but have no affiliation with his company or any firm working for it. I also have not used another username here. My username is my name and my intent was never to be deceptive or to promote his company. I’m new to Wikipedia and am still learning the process and standards. Everything that I wrote was pulled from websites and press releases. But your comments about the style, tone, and content of the draft were very helpful and informative. I can definitely see how the article needs to be rewritten in a more neutral and encyclopedic tone. Again, my intention was never to be deceptive or for promotion purposes. I’m excited to work on this draft and continue to improve it according to Wikipedia’s standards. How should I proceed from here? Thank you again for your feedback and help, I really appreciate it. Marissascavuzzo (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Marissa Scavuzzo


 * , Promotionalism is extremely common in our world, and --unfortunately — in Wikipedia. (There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove.) It is therefore quite possible for a good faith editor to write in such a style even without realizing it. ( I asked about the username because of some of the earlier editing on the article, whichwas clearly done by acounts that were not good faith editors)  Now that you understand what needs to be fixed, fix it and resubmit.  DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi DGG, thank you so much for your advice and guidance on rewriting this draft. I really appreciate your help. I rewrote the article based on your feedback and comments. I mostly tried to make it more neutral and “encyclopedic” and took out some content to shorten it and highlight the most important parts of his research. Would you mind taking a look at the revision to see if I made the correct changes? I am happy to go back and make further edits based on your feedback. Any advice is greatly appreciated! Marissascavuzzo (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal
Indeed. What I've read has been that the subject hired some editors to create a promo piece which stuck even though he is not really notable. Some experienced, well thought of editors made it a vehicle to showcase the subject's domestic abuse. And that doesn't look notable either. The subject keeps trying to hire UPE's and declared PAID's to whitewash/balance the article, and the regular editors vigorously oppose those efforts. They are quite insistent that the page remain as a showcase of the subject's domestic abuse. I think it's trash, but I guess we are going to keep it..--  Deep fried  okra    05:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * that sort of sequence has happened before; it also happens with consumer complaints. There's sometimes a certain satisfaction in getting the subject hoist with his own petard.    DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

C)

Request
Hi, DGG. I notice you declined the draft Manuel Muñiz on 16 January. I wonder if, as the man has been freshly appointed as Secretary of State (roughly a junior minister) in Spain, you may review the decision (per WP:POLOUTCOMES sub-cabinet officials are usually deemed notable), possible trim if they current content is deemed some kind of puffery notwithstanding. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The first thing I did was move the paragraph and references about this to the top, so it will be quickly visible.  Next step is a quick despam, which I can do unless you get there first,   and then I'll accept   DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I accepted it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Martha Boneta
I submitted a draft written about this subject and it was declined for being advocacy. Please help me understand what specifically would need done to have this reviewed as a Wikipedia article. She is an advocate so I am not sure if that is why or if there is specific wording that is not allowed. I wrote the facts as stated in reliable sources but I obviously got something wrong and apologize for that. I am more than happy to work on the draft of you can give me some advice on what is needed. Thank you for the help. --Narksajax (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , content like "Boneta says that her love of farming began when her grandmother came to live with Boneta and her family. Her grandmother grew a large vegetable garden in the backyard, and this inspired Boneta to one day own a family farm" is puffery. Try to write in a more impersonal way, and then I'll let someone else review it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)



regarding reviewing the page 'tel ganesan'
Hello, Thanks for moving the page 'Tel Ganesan' to Draftspace. I have been doing referencing with Wiki's autoreferencer to make citations from reliable sources. The references i have mentioned are from india's national medias. especially 1 & 2, India Today, News Today, Hindustan Times, The New India Express Etc. As the personality is an US-Indian there are numerous references are found in US based well known Newspaers, News websites like detroit free press, The Oakland press etc. The citations are made carefully after getting step by step reviews of editors which was undergon since past 3 weeks. So kindly reconsider the review going through the references posted and also guide me on any errors need to be rectified as i am a beginner.

Thank You, Jay --Jayreborn (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All newspapers in all countries will sometimes run stories that are indistinguishable from promotion. The best newspapers are a little careful that the subject at least appears to justify it, and that what gets said has some resemblance to reality., but an interview is normally an opportunity for the founder or promotor to make a pitch for their product or service.  Obtaining such articles and interviews is a primary job function of the higher class of press agents, and I sometimes think that what we measure here is not the notability of the subject but the skill and connections of the PR agent.
 * What I did was give you a chance to rescue the article; the alternative is that it would have been deleted, for a combination of promotionalism and not showing notability . Whether it becomes improved enough to be likely to pass AfD is up to you, and up to the possibilities of the sourcing for the subject., uSo, here's what to do:
 * First, you must declare whether or not you have a WWP:COI as we define it, for this, and for any other articles you may have written. In particular, if it should by any chance be a paid COI, see WP:PAID. Once you have told me this, we can go ahead and examine the references together.  DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thanks for the reply. I have understood your points. I have gone through the informations and i can understand what could journals do for promotion etc. As you have mentioned i have nowhere connected with this subject or anyother topics i have written so far. Also i have not involved in any kind of promotionalism or paid editing in this article and any other articles i have written. I just created articles about missing personalities and i am just learning about notability & references on living persons. It will be great you can examine and help me on creating such articles on living persons or personalities with proper & credible references which was missing. Thank you ! Jayreborn (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at the references, refs like 4, 7, and 21 are only incidentally about him; refs about the films are not directly about him, especially if they're from local newspapers--the role of "producer" can mean direct involvement, or just providing them oney; and I really have my doubts about whether the films themselves are notable. Refs 19,23, 24, are just listings. Anything from PR Newsrire or the link is PR, and not independent. Refs like 32 are press releases, as are many fo the others.  The various honours in section 5 ar trivial--even E&Y 50 nationally is dubious for notability, and just for a US region all the more so, and for a nomination not an award, so trivial as to be better not included. Whether there will be enough of substance left to show notability is in my opinion doubtful.  DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)    DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review
Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. Since your review, I researched the subject more and found some more independent sources. I've included them as citations. I know that I've included some listings and links to the books the subject has co-authored with his wife, but I thought they would work as proof alongside the independent articles that have been published about him. Is that not right?

Also, you have asked me to remove the PR articles, but I tried to be careful about not including any press releases, self-written and published articles by the subject, or his own companies' websites. Can you please point out which ones you found to be PR? Perhaps I am not looking at them as I should, but it would be really helpful for this article and the ones I'll write in future.

Thank you so much. FelixtheNomad (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking again at it,, I do not really think there is enough in the way of substantial accomplishments that it will be possible to show notability .  Refs 6, 12 & 13 are examples of PR;  refs 21-27 are mere notices of awards, 28 is inclusion in an unreliable directory. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you so much for this. This is a very specific response that will go a long way in understanding the kind of references and citations I should use. Now I can study the ones you've marked out once again to see what makes them 'unusable' for Wikipedia entries. However, there is one little question, if you would indulge me. In cases such as this one, is it better to create a 'stub' rather than a full article if the subject is not notable enough? FelixtheNomad (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

G11 on Richard B. Lanman
You're probably right, the article's pretty hopeless. GS suggests possible notability but with multi-authored medical papers it's always hard to tell on a quick review. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I could probably rewrite it to show notability, by focussing only of the parts that matter here. My decision key is
 * I. Unquestionably extremely notable, in the sense that WP must have an article: no matter how promotional  the article is, rewrite it, even if it means WP:TNT
 * 2. Clearly notable, in the sense that WP should have an article: if extremely promotional, remove it unless some established non-COI editor wants to rewrite; but if just a little promotional , fix.
 * 3. notable, but only ordinarily notable in the sense that WP could have an article: if promotional, remove. If not, cleanup and accept.
 * 4.Borderline notable, in the sense that it might be possible for WP to justify an article if we wanted to be extremely inclusive: if at all promotional, or the editor a UPE,  reject. If perfectly OK, accept.
 * 5. Not notable, reject.

The key also works in another direction:
 * A. Highly promotional : if extraordinarily notable, accept and fix or rewrite
 * B. Ordinarily promotional : if very notable, fix, if just sort of notable, reject.
 * C. Borderline promotional : If clearly notable, fix, If not, let the editor try to rewrite
 * D. Not promotional except incidentally: if more than borderline notable, accept. If borderline, consider. If not at all, reject.
 * This particular article is the common special case of a scientist moving into industry. This typically occurs when they happen to find something that is potentially capable of commercialization. If the article emphases the academic, I tend to be lenient. If it empahsises the commercial, and the commercial happens to be one of the rare cases where the commercial aspects are truly important, then I try to rewrite enough to keep it. In the usual case, like this, I tend to be stringent, just as much so as if there were no academic career.
 * This is at any rate my inclination, or what some people might call bias, about what is important, or at least ought to be important, in the world.
 * You and I and a number of others others here know how to truly evaluate in detail a publication record. As you say, it isn't easy. it's usually outside the range of what we can practically do here. But I wish it were possible to devote the time and energy to it, for it can be very interesting interesting exercise. It's one of the things faculty hope to teach graduate students.    DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the considered response, DGG. I too evaluate articles according to the balance of notability vs promotion, but perhaps place more weight on notability than you do. I hate deleting material that's more than borderline notable, unless one would genuinely have to blank the entire article to write an acceptable version. I think we're both biased towards academic research over commercial applications. Unfortunately I am some combination of too busy/inexpert, and perhaps also too lazy, to attempt to fix all the articles that I decline to delete -- but perhaps that's what the wikiprocess is about? I hope so, but some days I fear it is failing.
 * I've found the discussions at RHaworth's arbitration case around what other admins consider deletable under G11 & A7 to provide considerable food for thought. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Please ignore this post
Goddamn! Your talk page is f'd. Anyways, had this conversation I thought you might enjoy. (I called you a "bigwig")

Peregrine Fisher, it was made clear by the community not so long ago that to add anything funny to The Signpost is a dangerous occupation. I don't see much very funny about the new Arbcom and its work either, they've had some hard cases to solve right at the beginning of their tenure, but it will be a bonanza for the next issue of the magazine. DGG is probably one of the few really nice 'bigwigs' left on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 8:29 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)


 * That made me laugh. I don't know what the joke is, but the punchline is "DGG is probably one of the few really nice 'bigwigs' left on Wikipedia." Crack me up! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 8:36 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8) Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Prezzee
Hi, just wanted to follow up on this draft that you rejected two months ago. An article was published about a month ago briefly covering the subject's sales over the Christmas period. First, would this article satisfy your definition of a "true news story" as you previously stated here and second, would any of that info lend credibility to the size of the subject's operation or otherwise help towards satisfying WP:GNG in your opinion? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 11:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a true news story, but it isn't substantially about the subject. It's about gift cards, and they're one of the people/firms who comment.  If the firm is actually notable, there should be better. You're an experienced paid editor--did you realize the weakness in the refs but decided to give the job a try anyway?   DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC).
 * I recognised that the refs weren't the strongest, but felt there might still be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, at least from the perspective of another editor. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 09:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , The standard for acceptanceof a draft is whether the article would pass AfD. I try to go by what I think the consensus would be at AfD, but I know I am not infallible—and AfD can be a little unpredictable. . Therefore, if I've declined a draft, unless there's some special issue i want to follow up, I leave further reviews to another editor. As a suggestion, if you want to make the article stronger, you might want to look for some references for information about the financial success of the firm.

 DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Partial blocks.
 * The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news
 * Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating.  There is currently one template: uw-pblock.

Arbitration
 * Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Draft:New York Heritage
I see this subject noted in several articles and cited in several more. I'd be happy to have help on it or direction where to merge it if there is an appropriate target. Seems worth including. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this one is a problem. I'll try to find someone who can help.  There's always a problem for sourcing with articles about confederations of organizations, so  I tend to be very permissive with these.  DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Tommaso Geraci
Hi, I kindly ask you to check the voice on the Italian sculptor Tommaso Geraci. In my humble opinion, I think there are doubts about its relevance --5.171.190.189 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Check the voice? Do you mean check the references? It shows he has had major public art accepted.  DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pepper Group
Hi. Thank you for reviewing the draft. I rewrote and removed some parts that read like an advertisement or does not use a neutral point of view. I also added more independent, reliable and secondary references or sources. Please check if this is acceptable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurdivon (talk • contribs) 00:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * still does not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment. How about these 2 references?
 * https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/news-story/pepper-surges-on-asx-debut/e9ae24e8fad970a39ef09a48c6eeae22
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pepper-group-m-a-kkr-idUSKBN1AQ00X
 * They have an overview, description, survey and analysis/commentary from the writer. Can these be considered as substantial coverage? Aurdivon (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Seven Nations (Bible)
Hi DGG. I just wrote up a WP:STUB, see Draft:Seven Nations (Bible) because I first tried looking this up on Seven Nations which turns out to be a disambiguation page. So I searched further on WP and found that there is information with citations about these so-called Seven Nations or Tribes to be found in Judaism and war. However decided to move it off to "draft oblivion" where there is a waiting time of SIX months!

This was totally unfair and in violation of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH because (a) it is just a stub, and stubs are given time, lots of time. (b) It's a topic based on BIBLE verses from the Book of Deuteronomy. (c) I subsequently added two Biblical sources from Deuteronomy Chapter 7 verses 2-3 and Chapter 20 verses 16-18. (d) I am currently editing from my mobile phone which is hard enough but that makes it very difficult to utilize Wikipedia's referencing tools. (e) As an exeperienced WP editor in good standing for over 17 years I am well-aware of WP policies and I certainly qualify as as a WP:EXPERT editor who knows what he is doing. Finally, (f) User:Jmertel should have contacted me on on my talk page instead of coming across as a boderline violater of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

Thanks for hearing me out and for all your patience.

Please restore the Seven Nations (Bible) stub as soon as possible. I have asked some other editors to help out to improve the stub, hopefully they will. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * sure; it needs secondary sources also, but some can simply be copied over from the other article. can you find the actual reference in Maimonides given in ref 34 of the Judaism and Wars article, and add it there. If it means what I think it does, it's a clever redefinition of "extermination" to mean what we would now call Cultural assimilation.     DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see my response on my talk page (trying to keep the discussion in one place for clarity). Thanks! Jmertel23 (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 12
 News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (December 2019 and January 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 12th issue issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Scripts Submit your new/improved script here
 * Cscr-featured.svg XFDcloser (now a gadget) is this issue's featured script


 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Suffusion of Yellow's mark-reverted* Majavah's unslashifier
 * Guywan's BulletSort and HistoryHighlight
 * BrandonXLF's QuickEdit and CompareRevisions


 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Enterprisey's fancy-diff should now be able to handle everything the parser can throw at it.
 * Twinkle has a new update (more). It now supports partial blocks and includes the select2 library as a dependency. Select2 is available at MediaWiki:Gadget-select2.min.js for other gadgets and scripts to use.

Miscellaneous
 * Until now, this newsletter has been written primarily by me (DannyS712). f others would like to contribute, help is always appreciated; this was intended to be a community newsletter.

Pending requests A number of requests are listed at User scripts/Requests. Some of the remaining ideas include scripts to: ...and many more, all available at User scripts/Requests
 * expand a diff until it covers all contiguous edits made by that user
 * highlight which content (in the HTML) comes from which template
 * hyperlink "per X" to the last comment X made
 * show a pop-up section preview when you hover over its TOC link



Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

About the newsletter

Subscription options

Discuss this issue

Deletion of Äkta Explorer
Dear DGG, I politely have to disagree with the judgement of being advertising due to the following reasons:


 * The machine has not been produced for many years and is even out of support (i.e. no spare parts are produced anymore)
 * The article does not endorse this device. In the opposite, it mentions its primary competing product line and mentions that the same task can be performed by essentially all chromatography systems and that the advantages only are in the specialization (some tasks are easier on this device than on general purpose chromatography systems)
 * Even though I am an end user of the device, I am in no way affiliated with GE Healthcare. On the opposite, I have problems with them as imho they do misuse their duopoly position to the disadvantage of academic research (which does not have as much financial resources as the pharmaceutical industry).

It is a big problem, that there is hardly any independent information about these devices available on the internet, even though they play a central and important role in the pharmaceutical industry: namely in the purification of Biopharmaceuticals/biologics, which is the fastest growing class of drugs (every second cancer drug is meanwhile a "biologic"). What specific additions would convince you to NOT classify the article as advertising? This question is not rhetoric as I would like to get your honest answer! Notwithstanding now the fact that it is very rudimentary, but that's why Wikipedia exist that the community (including me) can improve on it over the next days, weeks and months.

I started to use the machine when it was introduced to the market (in 1994) had am still using it occasionally today. I have been teaching university courses about its use in protein purification. But again, there is no information about these devices on the internet (except for the vendors own info). The vendor has tried to start some online "community" about five years back, but without success. The device (and also its newer incarnations) is used mostly in proprietary (secretive) environments such as the pharmaceutical industry; maybe that's why these efforts have never taken off.

Thank you for your contribution, but I will try to get this article accepted with all the necessary modifications to fulfill the spirit of Wikipedia. I am just a very occasional contributor to Wikipedia. While the culture of Wikipedia is well know to frequent contributors, it is very different to e.g. the culture that I am used to (i.e. the world of scientific publication).

Regards, Mjeltsch (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I first must apologize --I seem to have clicked the wrong button--I meant only to have it considered for deletion. I never actually delete for reasons of promotionalism single-handed, but either nominate and let another admin to check my judgment and delete, or look at the ones other people have nominated and then delete if appropriate. The intention is to avoid just such mistakes as this.
 * You are quite right--I judged too quickly--it looks a little the way a promotional article might look, but it isn't promotional, for the reasons you've given. (most articles on products submitted here are in fact intended as disguised advertisements, and it's all too easy to just look at the new articles as if everything that might possibly be promotional  is in fact an advertisement. ) (I've restored it of course)
 * as it happens, I'm a molecular biologist myself & I've taught biochemistry and I can easily appreciate what the device does, though in my lab days 50 years ago things were considerably more primitive. I'm not sure though, you can really make a sustainable article for this particular brand of the device. I se our article on Fast protein liquid chromatography, which is written in a brand-neutral way, but mentions only Pharmacia . I think our readers would best be served by expanding the general article to cover in outline the two different lines of machines You could then make redirects from the different brand names. Since for specialized products like this the articles would necessarily have good deal of common material, and the differences between various brans and models can be explained briefly. I think it important to mention all the models, because in reading a scientific paper, people will come across the name in the methods section, and look under its name for some sort of explanation. If you need any help in organizing this, let me know.
 * I'm always glad to have a bad example of what happens when I work too fast or carelessly, because I can use it as a teaching example when trying to guide other reviewers.  DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The idea to move the stuff to the general FPLC article and have a forward sounds reasonable to me. I will proceed in that direction when I find the time (hopefully soon). Mjeltsch (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please review Draft Northern_Transmissions
At your suggestion I've created Draft:Northern Transmissions which is ready for review. In the course of creating it I discovered the url is blacklisted. I was unsuccessful in having it removed |blacklisted so I have created the page without any references to the url. Since this page is about a website I can understand that a page without any references to url may not meet certain standards. Please advise. Thank you. Henry A-W (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ,   I could  add the link, butthere needs to be much more in the way of information and sources.  If questions about the link are preventing you from adding more, addmore, & if it is sufficient, I'll add the link.  I hope you can find more for it seems reasonable that we shoudl have an article. (You were also reminded a question about  COI, btw, )  DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ari Rastegar Draft Page
Hi DGG,

I've trimmed down more WP:PROMO content from the draft page. What else do you consider advertising on the draft? Texatexan (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * the first thing I need to ask you, is whether you have any WP:COI as we define it?
 * The main reason for my declining to accept the article was that it does not show notability . Almost all the references are things he wrote himself, or press releases, or interviews in which he says whatever he cares to--such interviews are not independent sources, such as e-ssuite and Forbes. The Forbes article, by the way, is not under their editorial supervision, but by a "contributor" . That's the way they indicate that they know it's PR.  DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Giora Ram
Just letting you know -- it looks like you intended to G4 delete Giora Ram, but accidentally deleted the deletion discussion instead. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * so I did, I restored it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Giora Ram
Did you mean to delete and salt the AfD page Articles for deletion/Giora Ram (2nd nomination)? ... disco spinster   talk  23:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * oops. I'll fix it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Laia Cabrera
Thank you for your comment on Draft:Laia Cabrera : "There are serious problems with the article's non-encyclopedic style, and those are what need to be fixed". I am not an native english speaker (French) and although I have been creating the article thouroughly with references and creating a structure that is logical and solid, my formulations are not as precise as I wish they were, and would definitely benefit from a collaborator that would review the syntax. Let me know if there is a possibility there. Thank you! Yessa Deouve, February 10, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessadeouve (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

draft to Leopold Moll
Hello, thanks for your comments and support to Professor Leopold Moll, I will try add there the recommended things. Best --Vyrge (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

13 February 2020 Many thanks for your essential help with Professor Moll. There are more sources, I dont know if sufficiently well balanced and independent, for example obituary in the respected periodical Lancet from 1933 (it is even in English, and it is very very positive), summon of all Molls works (books, articles, lectures etc.) writen on typewriter in 1971 by his son Wilhelm, director of Medical University Library in Charlottensville, many photos (children clinic in Vienna, buildings, graves), records in on-line databases of WWII (wife Marie, brother Alois). I will also discuss again with my friends doctors and historians, how to improve the article. Kind regards --Vyrge (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft rejection
Hi, you rejected my Underwood draft as a “combination of advertising and society gossip”. But, Underwood’s co-partner Sabine Römer has her own Wikipedia article with few sources and arguably she is less notable. Can you help me by telling me what I need to change to get my draft accepted? The only “gossip” (which is sourced) is the rumour she was dating a British singer. The rest of the article shows her participation on a television series, the brands she has founded and helps to run, etc. I don’t see how she is not notable when she has been the limelight (especially in Australia) for over a decade. Thanks.--Nature987765 (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabine Römer.  DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC) �

Surasky
I have made major changes to Draft:Russell S Surasky: removed promotional tone and improved references. Can you please take another look at the draft and provide suggestions on how to make it ready for mainspace? Thanks a lot in advance! BhasSpeak (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thomas A Parham
Hi DGG,

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I'll move and respond to it here.

You wrote:

"promotionalism

"Are you realy sure you meant to restore the full to a bio article?  DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)"

Actually, not exactly. But I felt it was the best way to respond to your two original edits. So let's discuss.

First, you tagged the entire article with an "advertisement" claim. Then you removed what you believed to be advertisements. But then you left the advertisement tag? I'm sure you understand that looks like trying to have it both ways. If you tag something you see as a problem, then fix the problem, why wouldn't you remove the tag? Or was that simply something you overlooked when you were done?

Second, I also respectfully disagree with you in some other areas as well; and I'm happy to explain those.

1) I honestly haven't ever seen an advertising tag on a BLP before. What "product" do you feel is being advertised? Of course, I would understand if [Tim Cook|Tim Cook's] bio talked too much about the release of the next iPhone. That's a product that's for sale. But that doesn't apply here. So I felt the tag was inappropriate. Of course, I've seen BLPs with the "resume" tag when they're just dry recitations. But that isn't the case here either. And severe edits shouldn't cause it either.

2) I know you'll agree that by definition, a BLP is a biography. So why remove either a relevant WP:RS biographical quote, or an RS quote explaining something noteworthy in the BLP? You also removed half the RS honors and awards in a way that seemed abitrary.

Also I see you've "subsequently" (see what I did there :) made 2 new edits and invited discussion. So let's discuss those.

In your first edit you removed a quote because you said it was: "unreliable sourced material removed from BLP-- based on hisword only." Are you saying the source was unreliable? Because the RS was a university website. If you're saying that he himself is unreliable because it was "his word only," I believe that's acceptable (WP:BLPSELFPUB) for a brief but relevant quote about his own upbringing. There are also separate RS in the paragraph right before it, (which you also wanted to remove). There are RS links to 2 of his siblings and they both confirmed his quote on the university website.

And in your last edit you removed what you called an advert.

I'm always happy to collaborate and compromise. So let's try:

1) I agree we remove the last quote you took out. It's 2 sentences, but if you feel strongly then fine. In return, I'd like to keep his quote. I think it's interesting and important. I'll include it's from an interview, so it's not like he's just waxing nostalgic.

2) I also agree the daughters ref can be trimmed. Just listing their names is fine. I've already done that. 3) I think the list of Honors should remain intact because it's consistent with other university president BLPs, which list either honors or publications a bit, but not both. Like here, here, here, or here.

That covers it, I think. If you have anything else, let me know. Otherwise, agreed? X4n6 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Speaking generally: my main field of interest here is academic biographies, and I'm concerned in making sure that the non-notable ones do not get included, that the notable ones show clearly the encyclopedic notability, and that encyclopedia articles don't look like promotionalism.  As in other fields, probably most academic bios here are written  by coi editors, sometimes the subjects themselves, occasionally enthusiastic students, but much more frequently university or department PR staff. As in other fields, promotionalism  is so widespread both in the world and in Wikipedia that itis very easy for a person writing without coi in perfect good faith to write in a similarly promotional  style. Promotional writing is what the subject would like readers to know about himself, in contrast to encyclopedic writing, which is what a general reader might want to know.
 * 1) the "advertisement" tag is used for promotionalism in general.   It's meant as a signal that editing is needed, not a condemnation.  Articles containing promotional quotes are promotional, but fixable. Articles containing excess irrelevant personal material are promotional --they're what people or their employers like to say about themselves. What a reader cares about, is what the person's professional background is, and why the person's professional work is significant.
 * 2) Of course we list awards and publications . We list major awards and the most important publications. Listing minor awards does not add to notability, but detracts from it, because it takes away attention from the important accomplishments. There are only 2 types of publications that list every award:  CVs, where the current custom in academic CVs is to list everything possible, but WP is not a place for publishing CVs; and promotional write ups by PR staff which list everything they may think sounds impressive, but WP is an encyclopedia not a place for making people look important.  Nobody outside themselves or their own university cares about local awards or minor publications.   Nobody except those who know them care about their family's accomplishments--or, for that matter, their children's names.
 * 3) A person's own statements when published by a responsible source are accepted for the routine plain facts about their life--the sort of thing that can in principle by cross-checked. hat they say about their motivations is what they want to have said, and is not always trustworthy, for they tend to exaggerate. to the extent sometimes of self-puffery.
 * 4) Details are usually discussed on the article talk page, which is where I started this discussion. I'm not here to negotiate content, but to improve articles, and I improve them to the extent that is practical. Consider this as advice, and if we still disagree, we can continue there. and if necessary ask for other opinions.  DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You addressed several areas, in general terms, which merit a response. So, in order to make this a colloquy and not a disquisition, I'll respond to those here and save specific concerns about the article for its talk page.


 * It seems you've fashioned yourself to be a kind of anti-promotionalism heat seeking missile seeking out the scourge that is promotionalism in academic entries. Hyperbolic as that sounds, it's not intended as criticism. There are several editors on this project who perform a very narrow set of functions and they perform them very well. In fact, it's a laudatory exercise if coi influence in academic articles is as pervasive a problem as you make it sound. For me, more often than not I encounter academic BLPs that are little more than stubs. Almost as though someone recognized the individual was notable, but wasn't interested in the time it took to do a deep dive. They just wanted the individual listed in the encyclopedia.


 * By contrast, I'm a long-term, but not particularly prolific editor, who endeavors for quality over quantity. I'd rather write 10 articles that are well-written, well-sourced, encyclopedic, yet interesting reads, than write 1000 that are boilerplate just to increase my new article count. Of course articles must be encyclopedic, but that doesn't require that they be dry. And a well-placed and appropriate quote accomplishes that. Just as a picture is worth a thousand words, so too can a good quote be far more informative than dry prose. Regarding self-quotes, obviously they can be problematic. But a brief, well-chosen self-quote can also be informative and encyclopedic.


 * Regarding awards and publications, you mentioned your primary interest is in the academic biographies. Mine are in universities, university administrators, entertainment personalities and other bios. In the entertainment field, persons with an enormous number of awards will have separate articles just for cataloguing those awards. I have not seen that with academic bios. Although I do recall an article with a very long list of honorary doctorates. I've also encountered lengthy bibliographies and long lists of academic awards. As I mentioned prior, I don't think these do much for the article either. The reader certainly won't read them all. It just makes the staffer or academic who wrote their own article feel they've demonstrated how accomplished they are. But there is a middle ground between too little and too much of the lists and that's where I try to work.


 * I've encountered editors who automatically approach every article with the general rule that 50% of every article can be removed. Reliably sourced or not. As though they're somehow saving "space." Yet I've never seen a Good Article that could be read in thirty seconds or four paragraphs. Trimming the fat always makes sense. Amputating a limb just to make the whole lighter makes no sense.


 * Your comment regarding not being here to negotiate but to improve, sounded like a rejection of collaboration and compromise in favor of an only you know best approach, that I found of some concern. Perhaps you didn't mean it to sound that way, or maybe you did. I suppose we'll cross that Rubicon when/if we come to it. But improving articles is why I'm here too. The work I've done should make that clear. I'm no one's PR. I'm just aiming for encyclopedic, informative and interesting articles for the reader. X4n6 (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 01:58:00, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by JMmelegrito
Hello, Thank you very much for reviewing my draft article and I certainly appreciate the opinion of an expert Wikieditor. Just for the record, I'm neither working nor connected to TAP DMV and its employees.

May I ask what are the things that should be changed on the draft article? If there is a need for citation on the information, particularly on each of the channels, I have DVR recordings to show as a proof.

Also, If my Wikipedia article has not been approved, then why is the TAP Sports article, which contains far less details and contains only one reference, has been approved?

Hoping to hear your response. Thanks!

JMmelegrito (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The question isn't existence, but whether there are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. You may want to comment at Articles for deletion/TAP Sports. There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or  remove.  The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 06:17:06, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Marilen.buenviaje
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Antonio_H._Castro_Neto hi, can I get more tips on how to improve this article? it got declined by you :) thanks

Marilen.buenviaje (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I already said at the article what to do, so do it. Watch out for adjectives of excellence or praise--they do not belong in an encyclopedia .  DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)



thanks for your note
thanks for your comment just now at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Brianboulton/drafts. I cannot understand what is going on there. I just posted a link to the page in question. I have now successfully provided fully labeled redirects pointing to each of the drafts left by this user. Also, I created a sub-directory for all such drafts, so that any editor at all can get a comprehensive list of the full set of drafts, merely by using this template.

furthermore, I made the sub-page as a sub-page for the page for all deceased Wikipedians; in other words, any other such drafts can be added to the same sub-directory, so it will be easier for such editing efforts to proceed, since we have one centralized location to view them.

can you please go back and respond to the editor there who just replied? he linked to a past version of that page, instead of the current version which I had already updated. please feel free to follow both links, and then to reply. you are welcome to reply or to contact me any time. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. ...my bad. Talking about this at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians.-- Moxy 🍁 05:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I adjusted my comment accordingly Thanks for letting me know.  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * actually, your initial comment was totally fine and totally accurate. I would suggest that you please reinstate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but at this point I'm really a little confused. I'll look at it tomorrow when I'm more alert.  DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Neeyamo
Dear DGG,

We got a notification from wikipedia that says deleted page Draft:Neeyamo (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, noticed that the request to deletion was initiated by you. We look at having a company page without any promotions with respect to the wikipedia guidelines. Can you please help us get back the deleted article and also let us know if there is anything that any content that have to be removed for a green signal to conversion into a wiki page?  Irenejones2009 , who is us and we ? Only individuals must edit, so I assume you are a representative of the company. If so, you must make the appropriate declaration according to WP:COI and WP:PAID.  After that, we can discuss it further.  DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear DGG,

Read both COI & PAID and have declared accordingly. Can the wiki page go live?

Draft:Airoll(Vehicle)
Hi DDG,

Thank you for reviewing - Draft:Airoll (Vehicle). As per your comments some sections have been reworded as to avoid paraphrasing and an etymology section has been added to discuss the naming of the vehicle. Please let me know if any other changes are needed.

An OTRS inquiry
Wikimedia received a request to delete a draft article ticket:2019122210000089 the relevant draft is Draft:Joseph G. Sorokin.

At the time of the request, the draft had not been edited in just short of six months. I responded to them that it would likely be automatically deleted in a few days. However, you edited the article in the interim resetting the six-month clock.

While they were willing to accept a few days delay, my guess is they won't be happy to hear that it will take at least another six months.

Do you have any particular thoughts?

I suppose I can nominate for AFD but I wanted to check with you first. S Philbrick (Talk)  15:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me look. It will take a day or two.  DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
 * Source Guide Discussion

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
 * Refresher

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Edits Made - Following Up
Hey, DGG. I am following up on edits to the draft Granite_Telecommunications (see "Perplexed" above). We discussed the needed changes in December and I made the edits you requested at the time. Since the volume of interaction with you and the community is significant, I've quietly watching for updates. But now that we're coming up on a couple of months since the edits were made, I figure I should squeak, so I'm checking in to see if there's anything else I need to do. Also, I do plan to help with other business pages as you indicated is needed (especially since everyone's doing what I did -- make a page that looks like the other pages). In fact, I had been actively editing a range of content over the latter part of last year. But I held back since I wasn't looking for the things that you have pointed out to me here. I'll pick that back up when I see how this page nets out and I am confident that I'm not just replacing one bad edit with another... Thanks. Technutt (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * following up saturday or sunday, because you're doing good work and i want to clarify my comments in some detail, and discuss some related general issues.  DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC).

Sounds good. I'll check in after the weekend then. Thanks. Technutt (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * still working on it. I'm much more behind than usual. I may have to skip a few NYC editathons to catch up.  DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello, thank you for accepting my draft article of Kharija ibn Hudhafa Ahendra (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Eleiko
Hello DGG. Hope you are well. I noticed you put Eleiko up on AfC submission. What is the article missing and do you have any tips on how I can sort it out? Best,  Kjell1918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjell1918 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * reply forthcoming  DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ron Silver (chef)
Hi, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft. I read the reason that you rejected it (a lack of significant coverage) and included four more reputable citations that feature Silver as the main subject, not just a passing mention. I also condensed some of the language in his biography so that every fact is backed up directly by a reputable source. I would love to get your thoughts on what more could be done or if you think that this is sufficient - want to follow the rules and create a quality page! Draft:Ron Silver (chef) MiaF1213 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * replying tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Review of article on Noma Copley
Thank you, DGG, for reviewing my entry on Noma Copley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Noma_Copley) and for your feedback. I've revised according to that feedback, removing all "peacock terms" and making the language more formal. I also added a few additional citations that underscore the notability of the subject. I resubmitted the entry for consideration. I hope that you will find that this revised version meets all the criteria for acceptance. I look forward to your response. Thanks.Gaw54 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you for a second review, but I am anxious to confirm whether or not I'm on the right track with this entry. I would very much appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to give my entry on Noma Copley another look. She has for too long been in the shadow of her former husband, William Copley, whose Wiki entry contributes, in my opinion, to her marginalization. I'm looking forward to being able to add a link to that Wiki page that enables readers to learn about his partner's role in activities for which he is being given sole credit. Thank you in advance. Gaw54 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , before I had the opportunity to get there, an excellent reviewer, , has accepted it and is workin on it further. I may have a chance to do some additional removal of promotional  wording. You could help by changing the mentions of her by her first  name to her last, and replacing at least half of them by "she" , and decreasing the namedropping .   DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The use of first names is to distinguish Noma from her (ex)husband Bill and are only used when they are both mentioned. I'll take a look for other places where "she" can be used. I'm not sure what you mean by dropping the namedropping. The context both in which and with whom she worked is important to her story, as are the names of the artists who were in her collection. That's what defines a notable collection. One question: can you explain why Carroll O'Conner is in red rather than linking to the Wiki page for him? Thanks again for taking time to review.Gaw54 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hami Aksoy
Hi, how are you? why you move this article to draft? I think this person has notability in Wikipedia this person is the spokesperson to MFA in turkey all these sources talks weekly about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadqatari (talk • contribs) 11:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Roadex Project
Dear DGG. In my ignorance I appended a message for you in your Archive for September 2019 as that was the last time we corresponded. I have copied the text I inserted below. The only comment I would add to it is that I am having great difficulty in obtaining independent external evidence of the use of ROADEX technologies on public road networks as the average engineer and employing organisation involved do not normally publish such information. Engineers need to promote their work more in this regard and the ROADEX project is actively encouraging this. That said, any help/guidance you can give will be much appreciated. The text I appended in your September Archive was:
 * Dear DGG. Thanks again for your comments and letting me know about the help available on Teahouse. I made some changes to the ROADEX page in Sandbox following your comments and used it to replace the Draft in December. I am now picking up the page again to try to improve it further. Can I ask if you would be able to look over the current version and possibly give some advice on what is still needed? Editing Wikipedia is still a very new art to me! With best regards Ronmun (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

,  Promotional writing tells the audience what the subject would like them to know. Encyclopedic writing tells the audience what they would reasonably want to know and expect to find in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic writing is directed to the general public who might come across the subject and want to find some objective information.
 * What people would reasonably like to know, is what the project has actually accomplished, and, perhaps, what it is in the process of accomplishing or plans to accomplish, in specific terms. What nobody outside the project and its supporters care about
 * What nobody but PR people would ever write or anyone including them would want to read is jargon such as "widest possible context." or " have been designed to help learning in the workplace and in academic institutions. All four are available in the main partner languages to encourage dissemination and implementation."  "continuing to carry out joint research in areas of common interest." or  " state-of-the-art surveys "or  "Its aim was to move the ROADEX collaboration further" or " the web-based e-learning suite of four e-learning lessons "    Nor does anyone, particularly an encyclopedia, want puffery such as "Such has been the success of the PEHKO project, and the potential operational savings it offers, that it was awarded ..". Just say what they were awards--most people know without being explicitly told that awards go to things that are deemed successes. The guide to avoid promotional  wording is to say what you mean in the terms you would use in telling a person what you do.
 * It does matter which countries and agencies support the project. It's worth stating once, but not both in a table and in text. It does not matter to anyone but the staff how often the committee meets, nor how many of the meeting are on Skype
 * say partners, not Partners; don't  keep repeating "ROADEX",   try "the project" (not  "the Project") or, even better, "it"


 * And, even more important, almost all the references are from the project itself. We need 3rd party references.  DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

, Thank you for your suggestions. I accept them all. I needed the guidance and will take a fresh look at the draft page.Ronmun (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

, Thank you for your note regarding conflict of interest. I have a statement at my User:Ronmun. Do I need to say more?Ronmun (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Tushar Vasisht
Hi DGG,

I saw your message on Draft:Tushar Vasisht. Vasisht also has references even before he founded the company, such as

Can you suggest what other changes should be made to the article? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.83.177 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Promotional writing tells the audience what the subject would like them to know. Encyclopedic writing tells the audience what they would reasonably want to know and expect to find in an encyclopedia . No one except his close associates for example, is likely to care about his college musical activities. Except for the article in th NYT India Blog, everything in the refs is either not indpendent, not substantial, or about his company.  But I will let someone else review it if you submit it again. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Robert S. Gailey
Hi DGG,

Thank you for your feedback on my submission Robert S. Gailey, and for the edits you made on Jan 31st. I'm curious if you think I satisfied the Neutral Point of View with my edits on Jan 4th after your initial feedback. I cut out promotional terms and tried to focus on the publications and their impact.

Thank you for your time.

Soundingwell (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , what you now need to do is establish his notability as a scholar by checking in Google Scholar ofr th equivalent to see how much his peer-reviewed articles have bee cited.  DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The Humanitarian Society
Hey DGG, thanks for reviewing Draft:The Humanitarian Society. I'm passionate about Italian history, especially from 1700 to present. This is my first draft, but I'm not sure how I can adjust the tone to make it more neutral. Please, consider it's a direct translation of Società Umanitaria. Can you please give me a few suggestions? Thank you! -- Kr1shnamur (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Nepal
I just spotted an old archived RSN comment from you about Nepali literature:. It's certainly true that British study of Asian literature was superficial at least at this time, but I was wondering if you have specific knowledge around the Nepalese question? There's a specific interest in Nepal through the Gurkha regiments which I had always thought would have led to better coverage of that region, but I don't know enough about it to have an informed view. I have a bit of an interest in this as there is a substantial local Nepalese community, mainly ex-Gurkha, and my son is in the British Army and knows a number of current serving members from his time at Sandhurst. Ayo Gorkhali! Guy (help!) 11:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * my own interest in this area is more about Tibet than Nepal, and not primarily about politics. the 1913 EB is erratic--in some cases, most notably tantra, it is blatantly biased. But I wouldn't necessarily call it superficial--they did understand the basic linguistics.  There's a French and German scholarly  literature also, which I have never read (and, I think Russian.And, from a totally different perspective, Chinese)  It is necessary to keep in mind the very limited number of Europeans at the time who had any knowledge of the area, and the coverage will necessarily reflect their interests and preconceptions. And,  I remain unconvinced about how   current Indian and tibetan and Nepalese writing is objetive, rather than a nationalist reaction.  This is a very peripherial field for me.  DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, it might be hard to find current writing about any part of the region that is truly objective, there are so many political and religious axes being ground. Last time I was in India I discovered that renaming Bangalore to Bengaluru is still considered contentious, largely along caste lines. It's weird, because individual people in India especially - at least in my experience - are incredibly tolerant. I always put this down to the influence of Hinduism - when you have a thousand gods, fighting over one or other of them doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But then Modi went out against Muslims, which is a bummer and really challenged my preconceptions. I love India, though. Guy (help!) 22:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sander Lagast
Am I missing something, because the opening paragraphs of the text seem more like an attack section than anything else. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you know, it read as self-promotion, but having read it twice I think you may be right: it is either spam by someone who has unusually low levels of self-awareness, or a rather clever piss-take by someone who doesn't like him.Guy (help!) 22:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the best way to proceed? DB-attack (removing the AfD)? Courtesy blanking? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you need a rouge admin to apply a combined G11, G10, G3 and A7 rationale. Guy (help!) 23:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * people can have various combination of possibly friendly insults, and we have no way to tell either the actual intent, or the way it will be taken. People even say it about themselves, as a way of boasting.
 * As a separate issue, there is a tradition of unambiguous promotionalism   in fields like   self-help which make a point of how sinful the person was in their earlier life, and in the arts of how creatively they still misbehave
 * and, even more difficult, clever PR people sometimes deliberately include it in articles here, so they can defend against deletion at AfD, and they are sometimes successful. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

T

Animal species standard
Do we have any sort of notability standard in place for animal/plant species? We had an influx of stub articles such as Draft:Trigonopterus curvipes. I feel like I remember that if something has an official species name then it should be inherently considered notable. However, I can't find anything to confirm this. Surely, WP:GNG isn't required for every named species? Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I noticed these, and was trying to decide what to do with them. The rule is certainly that they  can have an article, and I would never want to challenge that .  But remember that the GNG says that if there is not sufficient inormation for a separate article, a combination article is preferable. In similar situations, where all that is really possible is a list of species, and especially if, as here, they are all sourced to one single published paper-- it seems to be usual practice to do just that. I'll advise the author accordingly.   DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Benevity
Hi, thank you for looking at Draft:Benevity. I'm confused by the move into draft space, why this instead of adding maintenance tags or AfD, with no discussion on talk prior to the move?

I disagree completely on it being 'undersourced' as a) there is no unsourced material in the article, and b) it has many significant, independent, reliable, secondary sources, in my opinion more than enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. While it may sound promotional, a) this is simply a reflection of the reliable sources and b) I don't believe that a promotional tone justifies removing the article from the namespace.

I'm annoyed that a consensus of one was able to remove this article from the encyclopedia, and that it will now have to undergo a long bureaucratic process rather than being improved in the namespace (my first time dealing with AfC - maybe I'm wrong). Thank you. -M.Nelson (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * From WP:DRAFTIFY
 * Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD. The etiquette about moving pages during deletion and review discussions is also good advice.
 * I ask that you revert the article to the mainspace and that we move to AfD if necessary. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright, moving on. From DRAFTIFY I found WP:ADMINACCT
 * Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed. [emphasis mine]
 * Please follow the administrator accountability policy and respond to my above queries. If you will not reinstate the article per WP:DRAFTIFY, please explain to me why DRAFTIFY does not apply to this scenario. Thank you. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * reply forthcoming, but it will take a fe says.  DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"success" story
When we spoke the other day I mentioned a "success" story, but I didn't provide a specific example. The user in question is Beebuk. Two examples where he is provided significant contributions are: Jean-Gaspard Deburau and Paul Legrand. S Philbrick (Talk)  20:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

errors lately
you forgot to sign your name and got some errors in your sentence. I check your contributions first thing I see is with some spacing issues. Did you get a new keyboard and having trouble with it? Or using Wikipedia while drunk perhaps? ;)  D r e a m Focus  20:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * tends to be a function of speed and sleepiness. The speed problem is usually the need (or at least the perceived need) to cope with the many hundreds of drafts and articles each day, but for these it’s my desire to respond to current questions and discussions while they are still current. Like others who have been active a long time, I’ve accumulated more topics in which I want to stay active than is really possible.  DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Could I suggest automating the archival of this talk page, It is very unwieldy at the moment. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * its actually in progress--, but it will never be short.  DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I would not have asked you if your talk was merely "not short". "Not short" is not a problem. Having over five hundred active talk sections, however, is. But it doesn't have to be, since we have at least two bots that archive pages for us :-) Best Regards and keep up your good work! CapnZapp (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help if you removed sections from this page, when they get archived. For example, the section User talk:DGG also exists in User talk:DGG/Archive 155 Dec 2019 and in User talk:DGG/Archive 156 Jan. 2020. This is perhaps a bit too much? Fram (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My practice is to archive everything every week or two, whether or not I will keep it on the main page. The intention is that the archive be complete, and the main page the active and the important, from which I remove things when I can. I know this is not what most people do.  It will make more sense when the page gets shorter.  DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Duncan Goose
 * Draft:Michael Polis
 * Draft:Sergei Sherstiuk

"Review" of Draft:Gerhard Lichtenfeld
What's the point of someone (me, in this case) noting the serious article problems when moving it to draft, if someone else will then "review" it and move it back to the mainspace without any improvements? I have moved it back to Draft:Gerhard Lichtenfeld. Fram (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ,I think you may be right, because I should have verified the prize.  DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One of these days, I can take care of him. He is now a red link in the prize article, instead at least an ill-link. Sigh. - He designed the plaque given to winners, and got the prize in 1970, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fram or DGG, could you please check again. I added that source, and more bio on another. Somehow we lost the function to request review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/PayActiv
Hi David, I left a note in the discussion on Articles for deletion/PayActiv but thought perhaps here might be a better forum for updates. We appreciate the re-review of the article and are open to helping our situation. Can we work to reduce or remove the promotional language on the TALK page of the article and make our suggested edits? We want to follow policy and best practice. Let me know if there are recommendations outside of additional credible sources and language removal to be made. Thank you LucyArn (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ahmed Emara
Dear DGG,

The article that you have moved as Draft: Ahmed Emara, has been created as Stub and other editors have also added their input in it. The content that is researched, written and has citation from the WEB. Why has this page being moved to a DRAFt when the notability guidelines has been followed.

Kindly waiting for your reply. Thank You Terminatorwil (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)terminatorwil

Talk page size 2
Hello DGG,

Your talk page is over a million bytes long, more than ten times too long. You've been asked to take action already in 2017 (as evidenced by this very page!). Nothing is happening. You probably already know you can set up automated archival in just a minute or two, yet you haven't done so. You are clearly not going to be able to successfully shorten this page without outside help, because, let's be honest, you don't want to make this page smaller.

As a courtesy to you, you are the first experienced editor I am going to ask: "who or where do I turn to in getting community assistance for a respected editor unable to keep his user talk page within guidelines?"

Of course, the more you do yourself, the less involved other editors have to get.

Have a nice day, and don't worry, if you want a week or two to sort this out, you'll have it (I won't check back for answers until 14 days from now unless you ping me). A random editor, CapnZapp (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I do want to reduce it to a practical size; 500K would do well for my needs, but I will try for half that.  I recognize the needs of others, but  I have no solution for how to adapt WP to cell phones for any purposes but reading or copyediting. If you think you do, it would be a helpful thing to work on. There are more important things in WP that need doing, by both you and me.     DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do or do not, there is no try. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Or how about Quit with the nannying of other people's pages? This obsession with wikisource size is idiotic; I would have thought that by now everyone knows that transfer time is entirely dominated by the presence or absence of even a few images; text has little to do with it. DGG, you probably should make a pass to archive; CapnZ, you should go find something useful to do that doesn't involve acting like a cop. E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed a page listed for speedily deletion
Not sure if I did this right but I created my first full page and it was marked for speedy deletion. I've edited only a couple of pages in the past, this was my first creation of a new page but due to my inexperience it came across as advertising. I am not a marketer or paid by the company. I was trying to fill the page with as many facts as possible and it came across as salesy and I don't want the referenced company to pay the price for my poor writing. I thought it would be helpful for anyone looking for information I thought would have been useful during my search. I scrubbed the article of any information I was uncertain about and resubmitted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KungFuAvenger (talk • contribs) 08:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

When my entry for Ben Park
..didn't gather enough support for inclusion @ its 2nd discussion at articles for deletion you were the only other than myself so much as to mention that his 1st book had just then been published @ the cambridge university press. Second's going to be published in a few (hey! literally 3) days but's already got a half dozen reviews. Instead of - as I did today - pushing the draft into mainspace, Should - rather - I'd brought the question up in a deletion review do you think?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Roadex Project
Dear DGG. In my ignorance I appended a message for you in your Archive for September 2019 as that was the last time we corresponded. I have copied the text I inserted below. The only comment I would add to it is that I am having great difficulty in obtaining independent external evidence of the use of ROADEX technologies on public road networks as the average engineer and employing organisation involved do not normally publish such information. Engineers need to promote their work more in this regard and the ROADEX project is actively encouraging this. That said, any help/guidance you can give will be much appreciated. The text I appended in your September Archive was:
 * Dear DGG. Thanks again for your comments and letting me know about the help available on Teahouse. I made some changes to the ROADEX page in Sandbox following your comments and used it to replace the Draft in December. I am now picking up the page again to try to improve it further. Can I ask if you would be able to look over the current version and possibly give some advice on what is still needed? Editing Wikipedia is still a very new art to me! With best regards Ronmun (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

,  Promotional writing tells the audience what the subject would like them to know. Encyclopedic writing tells the audience what they would reasonably want to know and expect to find in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic writing is directed to the general public who might come across the subject and want to find some objective information.
 * What people would reasonably like to know, is what the project has actually accomplished, and, perhaps, what it is in the process of accomplishing or plans to accomplish, in specific terms. What nobody outside the project and its supporters care about
 * What nobody but PR people would ever write or anyone including them would want to read is jargon such as "widest possible context." or " have been designed to help learning in the workplace and in academic institutions. All four are available in the main partner languages to encourage dissemination and implementation."  "continuing to carry out joint research in areas of common interest." or  " state-of-the-art surveys "or  "Its aim was to move the ROADEX collaboration further" or " the web-based e-learning suite of four e-learning lessons "    Nor does anyone, particularly an encyclopedia, want puffery such as "Such has been the success of the PEHKO project, and the potential operational savings it offers, that it was awarded ..". Just say what they were awards--most people know without being explicitly told that awards go to things that are deemed successes. The guide to avoid promotional  wording is to say what you mean in the terms you would use in telling a person what you do.
 * It does matter which countries and agencies support the project. It's worth stating once, but not both in a table and in text. It does not matter to anyone but the staff how often the committee meets, nor how many of the meeting are on Skype
 * say partners, not Partners; don't  keep repeating "ROADEX",   try "the project" (not  "the Project") or, even better, "it"


 * And, even more important, almost all the references are from the project itself. We need 3rd party references.  DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

, Thank you for your suggestions. I accept them all. I needed the guidance and will take a fresh look at the draft page.Ronmun (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

, Thank you for your note regarding conflict of interest. I have a statement at my User:Ronmun. Do I need to say more?Ronmun (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Tushar Vasisht
Hi DGG,

I saw your message on Draft:Tushar Vasisht. Vasisht also has references even before he founded the company, such as

Can you suggest what other changes should be made to the article? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.83.177 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Promotional writing tells the audience what the subject would like them to know. Encyclopedic writing tells the audience what they would reasonably want to know and expect to find in an encyclopedia . No one except his close associates for example, is likely to care about his college musical activities. Except for the article in th NYT India Blog, everything in the refs is either not indpendent, not substantial, or about his company.  But I will let someone else review it if you submit it again. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Robert S. Gailey
Hi DGG,

Thank you for your feedback on my submission Robert S. Gailey, and for the edits you made on Jan 31st. I'm curious if you think I satisfied the Neutral Point of View with my edits on Jan 4th after your initial feedback. I cut out promotional terms and tried to focus on the publications and their impact.

Thank you for your time.

Soundingwell (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , what you now need to do is establish his notability as a scholar by checking in Google Scholar ofr th equivalent to see how much his peer-reviewed articles have bee cited.  DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply . I did have a sentence on the number of citations in the "Career" section, but let me know if you think I should move it, perhaps to the intro, if you think it should be more of the focus of the article. I've also updated it to reference Google Scholar instead of Research Gate as that appears to have a more complete listing.

Thank you. Soundingwell (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The Humanitarian Society
Hey DGG, thanks for reviewing Draft:The Humanitarian Society. I'm passionate about Italian history, especially from 1700 to present. This is my first draft, but I'm not sure how I can adjust the tone to make it more neutral. Please, consider it's a direct translation of Società Umanitaria. Can you please give me a few suggestions? Thank you! -- Kr1shnamur (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In the English WP, we do not use phrases that imply excellence or judgement, even as quotations. We just describe what the organization did. Similarly, we say who foundedan organization, but do not give the names of the celebrity supporters. Thisshould be easy to fix, so fix it, and let me know here.  DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Nepal
I just spotted an old archived RSN comment from you about Nepali literature:. It's certainly true that British study of Asian literature was superficial at least at this time, but I was wondering if you have specific knowledge around the Nepalese question? There's a specific interest in Nepal through the Gurkha regiments which I had always thought would have led to better coverage of that region, but I don't know enough about it to have an informed view. I have a bit of an interest in this as there is a substantial local Nepalese community, mainly ex-Gurkha, and my son is in the British Army and knows a number of current serving members from his time at Sandhurst. Ayo Gorkhali! Guy (help!) 11:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * my own interest in this area is more about Tibet than Nepal, and not primarily about politics. the 1913 EB is erratic--in some cases, most notably tantra, it is blatantly biased. But I wouldn't necessarily call it superficial--they did understand the basic linguistics.  There's a French and German scholarly  literature also, which I have never read (and, I think Russian.And, from a totally different perspective, Chinese)  It is necessary to keep in mind the very limited number of Europeans at the time who had any knowledge of the area, and the coverage will necessarily reflect their interests and preconceptions. And,  I remain unconvinced about how   current Indian and tibetan and Nepalese writing is objetive, rather than a nationalist reaction.  This is a very peripherial field for me.  DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, it might be hard to find current writing about any part of the region that is truly objective, there are so many political and religious axes being ground. Last time I was in India I discovered that renaming Bangalore to Bengaluru is still considered contentious, largely along caste lines. It's weird, because individual people in India especially - at least in my experience - are incredibly tolerant. I always put this down to the influence of Hinduism - when you have a thousand gods, fighting over one or other of them doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But then Modi went out against Muslims, which is a bummer and really challenged my preconceptions. I love India, though. Guy (help!) 22:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sander Lagast
Am I missing something, because the opening paragraphs of the text seem more like an attack section than anything else. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you know, it read as self-promotion, but having read it twice I think you may be right: it is either spam by someone who has unusually low levels of self-awareness, or a rather clever piss-take by someone who doesn't like him.Guy (help!) 22:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the best way to proceed? DB-attack (removing the AfD)? Courtesy blanking? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you need a rouge admin to apply a combined G11, G10, G3 and A7 rationale. Guy (help!) 23:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * people can have various combination of possibly friendly insults, and we have no way to tell either the actual intent, or the way it will be taken. People even say it about themselves, as a way of boasting.
 * As a separate issue, there is a tradition of unambiguous promotionalism   in fields like   self-help which make a point of how sinful the person was in their earlier life, and in the arts of how creatively they still misbehave
 * and, even more difficult, clever PR people sometimes deliberately include it in articles here, so they can defend against deletion at AfD, and they are sometimes successful. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

T

Animal species standard
Do we have any sort of notability standard in place for animal/plant species? We had an influx of stub articles such as Draft:Trigonopterus curvipes. I feel like I remember that if something has an official species name then it should be inherently considered notable. However, I can't find anything to confirm this. Surely, WP:GNG isn't required for every named species? Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I noticed these, and was trying to decide what to do with them. The rule is certainly that they  can have an article, and I would never want to challenge that .  But remember that the GNG says that if there is not sufficient inormation for a separate article, a combination article is preferable. In similar situations, where all that is really possible is a list of species, and especially if, as here, they are all sourced to one single published paper-- it seems to be usual practice to do just that. I'll advise the author accordingly.   DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Benevity
Hi, thank you for looking at Draft:Benevity. I'm confused by the move into draft space, why this instead of adding maintenance tags or AfD, with no discussion on talk prior to the move?

I disagree completely on it being 'undersourced' as a) there is no unsourced material in the article, and b) it has many significant, independent, reliable, secondary sources, in my opinion more than enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. While it may sound promotional, a) this is simply a reflection of the reliable sources and b) I don't believe that a promotional tone justifies removing the article from the namespace.

I'm annoyed that a consensus of one was able to remove this article from the encyclopedia, and that it will now have to undergo a long bureaucratic process rather than being improved in the namespace (my first time dealing with AfC - maybe I'm wrong). Thank you. -M.Nelson (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * From WP:DRAFTIFY
 * Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD. The etiquette about moving pages during deletion and review discussions is also good advice.
 * I ask that you revert the article to the mainspace and that we move to AfD if necessary. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright, moving on. From DRAFTIFY I found WP:ADMINACCT
 * Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed. [emphasis mine]
 * Please follow the administrator accountability policy and respond to my above queries. If you will not reinstate the article per WP:DRAFTIFY, please explain to me why DRAFTIFY does not apply to this scenario. Thank you. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * reply forthcoming, but it will take a fe says.  DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother, but any update? Currently it feels like the effort I spent researching and writing this article was for naught, which is demoralizing and suggests to me that I shouldn't bother the next time that the article-writing itch hits. Thanks -M.Nelson (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , my fault entirely. apparently I am trying to do too much, and cannot keep up with the necessary responses. I'm trying to correct this. .Reply in process. watch this space tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Currently, the main difficulty for Wikipedia is the widespread presence of promotionalism. NPOV is (along with WP:V) are our basic policies, and the use of Wikipedia for advertising or promoting anything makes NPOV impossible, and reduces us to the level of Google. Therefore, I and many others here spend most of our time trying to cope with the increasing number of with promotional articles -- and editors -- and consequently do have an excessive  tendency to look upon everything as likely to be to some degree promotional. What makes this more complicated, is that even non-promotional  perfectly good faith editors like yourself sometimes write in a way which can be difficult to distinguish from promotionalism : this is partly due to the extraordinarily large amount of true promotionalism  in the world, which makes it the natural way for people to write -- but also to the particularly high level of it on Wikipedia, where people sometimes use promotional  articles as models.

In dealing with this, we try to find intermediate solutions between tagging an article, but never being able to follow up, and deleting it altogether. The current method is the use of draft space. It has in most respects been quite successful-- all    articles by new editors get submitted there,  and we can keep track of what gets improved and what does not. The use of draft space also opens the participation in this process to non-admins. Anyone can move an article to draft, not just admins, and the process of accepting articles from draft is done by a those editors who hold the AFCH permission, as well as admins. All in al, its a fairer and more effective than our earlier ways of dealing with this (It has problems, such as from the delays, but about half the articles now get reviewed almost immediately). Another problem, common to other areas in WP, is the use of templates. They're necessary to handle the work, and as a guide for less experienced reviewers,. but the wording does not always apply.

There are several ways of looking at what promotionalism consists of: Promotional articles (and web sites) tell the reader what the company (or other subject)  would like them to know; in contrast, encyclopedia articles say what the general public might reasonable want to know, having heard of the organization or other subject. Promotional writing is  directed towards employees or potential employees or supporter or potential supporters, clients or potential clients.

Looking at the draft, I do consider it inadvertently worded in a promotional way. This is particularly difficult to avoid in companies of this sort--those directed to b-to-b services, and claiming to produce social as well as commercial benefits The best way for me to explain this is to modify it and then accept it, which I have just done. Part of the delay was my difficulty in figuring out how to deal with a case of writing in a clearly promotional style from an editor who had not done so previously. If you do not like what I have done, you may of course add it back, but consider first the most neutral way to word it: I sometimes say that encyclopedic writing should be concise, cold, dull, and descriptive. If you do add it back, I shall not argue, but might use afd in the old way.  DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"success" story
When we spoke the other day I mentioned a "success" story, but I didn't provide a specific example. The user in question is Beebuk. Two examples where he is provided significant contributions are: Jean-Gaspard Deburau and Paul Legrand. S Philbrick (Talk)  20:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

errors lately
you forgot to sign your name and got some errors in your sentence. I check your contributions first thing I see is with some spacing issues. Did you get a new keyboard and having trouble with it? Or using Wikipedia while drunk perhaps? ;)  D r e a m Focus  20:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * tends to be a function of speed and sleepiness. The speed problem is usually the need (or at least the perceived need) to cope with the many hundreds of drafts and articles each day, but for these it’s my desire to respond to current questions and discussions while they are still current. Like others who have been active a long time, I’ve accumulated more topics in which I want to stay active than is really possible.  DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Could I suggest automating the archival of this talk page, It is very unwieldy at the moment. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * its actually in progress--, but it will never be short.  DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I would not have asked you if your talk was merely "not short". "Not short" is not a problem. Having over five hundred active talk sections, however, is. But it doesn't have to be, since we have at least two bots that archive pages for us :-) Best Regards and keep up your good work! CapnZapp (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help if you removed sections from this page, when they get archived. For example, the section User talk:DGG also exists in User talk:DGG/Archive 155 Dec 2019 and in User talk:DGG/Archive 156 Jan. 2020. This is perhaps a bit too much? Fram (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My practice is to archive everything every week or two, whether or not I will keep it on the main page. The intention is that the archive be complete, and the main page the active and the important, from which I remove things when I can. I know this is not what most people do.  It will make more sense when the page gets shorter.  DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"Review" of Draft:Gerhard Lichtenfeld
What's the point of someone (me, in this case) noting the serious article problems when moving it to draft, if someone else will then "review" it and move it back to the mainspace without any improvements? I have moved it back to Draft:Gerhard Lichtenfeld. Fram (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ,I think you may be right, because I should have verified the prize.  DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One of these days, I can take care of him. He is now a red link in the prize article, instead at least an ill-link. Sigh. - He designed the plaque given to winners, and got the prize in 1970, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fram or DGG, could you please check again. I added that source, and more bio on another. Somehow we lost the function to request review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, please, look again. Fram has barely edited since I asked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you rate Gerhard Lichtenfeld as Stub or Start? See Talk:Gerhard Lichtenfeld. Grimes2 (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Start." I fixed it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/PayActiv
Hi David, I left a note in the discussion on Articles for deletion/PayActiv but thought perhaps here might be a better forum for updates. We appreciate the re-review of the article and are open to helping our situation. Can we work to reduce or remove the promotional language on the TALK page of the article and make our suggested edits? We want to follow policy and best practice. Let me know if there are recommendations outside of additional credible sources and language removal to be made. Thank you LucyArn (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you really think it reasonable to ask a volunteer engaged in dozens of other things to work with you personally so that you will be paid for the job you have undertaken for the benefit of an outside firm? The best advice I can give you is that it is rare, but possible, for someone with their experience in PR to be able to write acceptable NPOV WP   articles, even when they work as a volunteer, because the mindset is different. It is almost never possible for someone paid for the job to write a WP article that will satisfy both their employer and Wikipedia, because the company wants to spread the good new about their services, and the encyclopedia wants to meet the needs of the public who might  want to find out something objective. There is an overlap, to be sure, but the two ends are incompatible. Really good  PR people know to work with other media than ours.  DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk page size 2
Hello DGG,

Your talk page is over a million bytes long, more than ten times too long. You've been asked to take action already in 2017 (as evidenced by this very page!). Nothing is happening. You probably already know you can set up automated archival in just a minute or two, yet you haven't done so. You are clearly not going to be able to successfully shorten this page without outside help, because, let's be honest, you don't want to make this page smaller.

As a courtesy to you, you are the first experienced editor I am going to ask: "who or where do I turn to in getting community assistance for a respected editor unable to keep his user talk page within guidelines?"

Of course, the more you do yourself, the less involved other editors have to get.

Have a nice day, and don't worry, if you want a week or two to sort this out, you'll have it (I won't check back for answers until 14 days from now unless you ping me). A random editor, CapnZapp (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I do want to reduce it to a practical size; 500K would do well for my needs, but I will try for half that.  I recognize the needs of others, but  I have no solution for how to adapt WP to cell phones for any purposes but reading or copyediting. If you think you do, it would be a helpful thing to work on. There are more important things in WP that need doing, by both you and me.     DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do or do not, there is no try. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Or how about Quit with the nannying of other people's pages? This obsession with wikisource size is idiotic; I would have thought that by now everyone knows that transfer time is entirely dominated by the presence or absence of even a few images; text has little to do with it. DGG, you probably should make a pass to archive; CapnZ, you should go find something useful to do that doesn't involve acting like a cop. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed a page listed for speedily deletion
Not sure if I did this right but I created my first full page and it was marked for speedy deletion. I've edited only a couple of pages in the past, this was my first creation of a new page but due to my inexperience it came across as advertising. I am not a marketer or paid by the company. I was trying to fill the page with as many facts as possible and it came across as salesy and I don't want the referenced company to pay the price for my poor writing. I thought it would be helpful for anyone looking for information I thought would have been useful during my search. I scrubbed the article of any information I was uncertain about and resubmitted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KungFuAvenger (talk • contribs) 08:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * see your user talk p. for advice.  DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

When my entry for Ben Park
..didn't gather enough support for inclusion @ its 2nd discussion at articles for deletion you were the only other than myself so much as to mention that his 1st book had just then been published @ the cambridge university press. Second's going to be published in a few (hey! literally 3) days but's already got a half dozen reviews. Instead of - as I did today - pushing the draft into mainspace, Should - rather - I'd brought the question up in a deletion review do you think?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * the best way would have been to ask me to move it into mainspace. (Deletion Review is a last resort) I think it will stand up as far as notability is concerned, and I'll check it for any possible improvements. If it gets listed for AfD, let me know, because there are too any for me to follow otherwise.  DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm! um kay. Tried a re-drafifying mv to Draft:Benjamin Park only to have a double-direct fixer, perhaps, bot automatically move it back again. If you could "toolkit" it to there for me -- (Say - back to here?: diff -- I'd really appreciate it--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't understand. I do think it is good enough to stay, even though you moved it irregularly. I will edit it further perhaps. I removed the book reviews he wrote --they're generallyv too minor to count. What we do need is reviews of his books.  DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

My entry for Draft:Forrest M. Holly Jr.
Thank you for giving my draft article a look. The late Prof. Holly died in 2017, and the page is not offering any commercial merchandise, I have had a hard time since first rejection in 2017 understanding earlier comments about the article "reading like an advertisement". In your review comments earlier this month you stated that in your opinion the subject is clearly notable, but the article needs rewriting. This vague suggestion is difficult to follow. I write for a living and will do what is needed. Can you provide a bit more detailed instruction on what it will take to move this article out of the draft queue and into Wikipedia? I am not a professional Wikipedia writer, and don't understand the rules very well. Your guidance will be appreciated. Thank you very much for any guidance you will provide. Fogden (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As for content: In addition to his textbooks (which you need to show significant by evidence of their wide use, and of published reviews) , you need  the 5 most cited peer-reviewed articles, given in full with coauthors, full name of journals, and links, with the number of citations to each of them from Google Scholar. . Include only national level awards--not   awards from his own university). Student evaluations are also irrelevant here. Remove all adjectives and phrases of praise or excellence. The work he did must speak for itself.    People listed in "influenced" should only be those notable enough to have an article in WP.  Avoid aspects  not relative to his notability and impressions about his early life, and anything implying your own judgment or evaluation.   You need a published reference for his early life. . As a matter of style: Don't use Dr., use only the last name or, most of the time, "he".    And,  Reference 12 gives an error.  DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Alan Roger Currie Article
What new and/or revised portions of the Alan Roger Currie article now read like an "advertisement?" Curious. This article has not had such a claim in over five years. Thanks. Chicago Smooth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All of it. See Articles for deletion/Alan Roger Currie .  DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems very personal to me. This article has been active since April 2015. Almost five years. And no one has had a (major) problem with it until you. Feels personal. Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As we have apparently never interacted before, I do not see on what basis you can say that this is personal. I have a dislike for promotionalism, but it extends to people in all  professions, including my own.  DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if your desire to delete the Alan Roger Currie article is not personal, then excuse my accusation, but in my partial defense, I have had other Wikipedia.org editors criticize me, Author & Dating Coach Alan Roger Currie, and/or the entire dating advice and relationships advice industry as if they had something "personal" against Currie and/or his field of work. Secondly, I created the article for Currie first in May or June of 2007.  The initial article was more centered on his first book titled Mode One: Let the Women Know What You're REALLY Thinking.  Then a year or so later, I was instructed to make the article more about the author rather than his book.  I did so.  Then, in July or August of 2009, the article was attacked for many of the same reasons that you listed (e.g., "Currie, nor his books, are notable enough" and "too much promotional verbiage")  So in late August 2009, the Alan Roger Currie article was deleted.  I left it alone until about 2014, then I began working on a new version.  And before it was published, I must have asked at least 5 - 10 different Wikipedia.org editors, "Is this article okay? Does it meet the standards for notability? What do I need to do to prevent the new version from being attacked, criticized, or the subject of deletion?"  At least a half dozen editors wrote me and said in one way or another, "This article is acceptable to be published.  Go for it."  So I published the Alan Roger Currie for the third time in April 2015.  And since then, no one has chosen to nominate it for deletion until now.  Again, if the article needs to be edited ... even extensively edited ... I am fine with that.  But I think it is wholly unfair for this article to be completely deleted after these other Wikipedia.org editors gave me the "green light" in April 2915.  My thoughts.  Enjoy your weekend.  Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The virtue of a discussion at AfD is that you will receive the opinion not of any one editor, but of the community. It's the only way to find out.  DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jeffrey Elam
Hi DGG,

Thank you for your feedback on my submission Draft:Jeffrey Elam I've made all the edits to address your comments, with the exception of one - the source for the facts of his career. I got this information from speaking with him directly. It's also detailed in his CV but that is not published online. Would he need to publish that online in order for us to include those details or is there a way to cite based on direct conversation? Jkoka276 (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , See WP:V - a key basic principle of the encyclopedia is that people need to be able to verify what's there. Some of the information you need is available online, and anyone,, like myself,  could get it, but you're the one getting paid for it. My job as a volunteer is to guide you. You need to find his 5 most cited papers--use Google Scholar. You need to find out which of the patents have been cited substantially by people other than his group, and Goggle Scholar can do this also. You need to find out which of the patents have ben significantly commercially exploited, and, if you;'e in the PR office, that sort of information should be available to you.  You can also find out the title and date of his thesis and generally his advisor--either Google Scholar or WorldCat usually does it, though that's not essential.
 * Why would any successful scientist not want to put his CV online?  But I'm going mainly by practice in universities, which is where my experience is, so maybe government and industry are different.     DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Albers School of Business and Economics
Hello DGG, I'm hoping you can give me more specific feedback/comments on how I can improve my submitted article to be more neutral. Is the tone of the copy problematic, or the reliability of the sources? Specific sections? Thank you, EastIrving (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First:  Since this is your only article, it is  reasonable to ask  whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on  Conflict of Interest  If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary much more specific disclosures.      DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your following up and the inquiry. I am not connected to this organization by any personal or financial means which would present a COI (that I'm aware of). As I'm new to the publishing industry, I don't intend for this to be my only article. Let me know if I can provide more information. Thank you EastIrving (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Article has been revised and resubmitted EastIrving (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Another reviewer made a comment there, with which I agree. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Joe Seddon
Hello DGG, I have edited the article above based on your feedback. Let me know if there are any further improvements you think could be made. Doogierev (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Just FYI, you forgot to put this article onto Wikidata. The person had already had an article created on other wikis, such as hrwiki, skwiki and plwiki. Informing you here because I believe interwiki linking is important, and I want you to be more careful. Thanks. 37.47.200.14 (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I never do anything on Wikidata. What I do try to do is add the article to the languages list, but this can also be done by the many excellent and careful people who fill in the technical gaps after an article is accepted. I try to concentrate on what I can personally do best, which is judge whether an article is likely to be deleted, and on what I am one of the vey few WP reviewers to do at all, which is give detailed and appropriate advice to all good faith editors.
 * so I want to express my appreciation to you, and all the others checking such things. I don't think your work is any the less important than mine, and it requires equal care and equal judgment --and equal devotion to the encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 10:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello DGG, Do you have any further edits which you think should be made on the article? The subject continues to be covered across the international media - BBC News, The Times, The Telegraph in the UK last week - and a big two page spread feature in Corriere della Sera this week. Doogierev (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is not primarily notability, but the rather promotional style in which he article is written. The use of quotes like  "advertised as offering students “anytime, anywhere mentorship at the touch of a phone screen”"  ; the  name dropping -- if he received an honour it does not mater who gave it, and if he appeared on a platform, it is irrelevant who also appeared. Wha you need to do is cut back further on such material, and also to remove all references to he Mail -- this is no regarded as a reliable or even usable source in Wikipedia. There might be enough left.  DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello DGG. First of all, thank you for your ongoing feedback on this draft article - it's been incredibly instructive. I've made the changes in line with your previous suggestions: including the removal of Daily Mail citations, removal of anything which could be construed as namedropping, and the removal of direct quotes from the subject and others. I hope the style of the article is now to your satisfaction and provides an unambiguously objective overview of the subject. Let me know if there's anything else I should be thinking about. Doogierev (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

More disruptive behavior related to the AfDs on churches in Leicester
The placing notes against other editors' consensus and literal duplication of notes seen at Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester is pure WP:IDHT. The editor refuses to get the point, listen, or discuss and it's just silly now. The behavior at these annoying AfDs is just disruptive editing at this point, and I honestly just wished that these AfDs were closed to any reasonable result so I don't have to see more.

I know you're involved to some degree by having given your position in the AfD, but could you either address these procedural issues or refer this to another admin? — MarkH21talk 22:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I made a comment, though it is only indirectly pertinent. I do not think this has reached the level of disruption that needs admin action. One virtue of AfD discussions is that the get closed after a week or two. There isn't the same opportunity as on a talk page for someone to artificially prolong a dispute indefinitely.  DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in principle to some degree, but now the editor has placed on their sandbox left lingering for over a day (false because the editor commented on the closely related and cross-linked AfD so therefore an appropriately-notified concerned editor per WP:APPNOTE). This is the fourth time they've cast WP:ASPERSIONS or made a personal attack in relation to these AfDs alone (warned about it previously  and ), one of several times the editor has blatantly mischaracterized other editors (e.g. ), on top of several past warnings about tendentious and disruptive editing. Just leaving false accusations about other editors on their sandbox is actionable, since it's yet another personal attack per WP:WIAPA after multiple past warnings about their personal attacks.Is this still something that an admin can't warn the editor about? That seems preferable to opening an ANI thread. — MarkH21talk 04:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for help
I am here as per the advice on WP:ANI to avoid drama and seek out a recently active admin. has been an editor on Wikipedia since 2010, but has only some 150 edits to his name. Recently he has been editing the Sefer Yetzirah article, adding what in my opinion is tons of litter. The worst thing is he redoes his edits with misleading (and even slightly offensive) edit summaries. I have already posted on his talkpage the previous time, so instead of posting there again, apparently to no avail, I though you might be willing to help, and explain to this editor why his edits are problematic. I'd appreciate it. Can you do that? Debresser (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made some comments on the talk page of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Passive Millimeter Wave Camera
Hi DGG,

Hope you're well! I was wondering if you had any further comments for improvement on my draft page, Passive Millimeter Wave Camera? Would love to get my first Wiki article published and your initial comments were very useful.

Many thanks and all the best! Barney. 12:50, 27 February 2020 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneypacker (talk • contribs)
 * replied on the draft, and on your talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Rolf Eberhard Buch
Hi DGG.

Thank you for reviewing the Wikipedia article about Rolf Buch. Unfortunately, I couldn't understand the rejection because there are a lot of independent portraits of his person (not the company) in leading German media (Handelsblatt/Welt/Zeit). That's why I asked at the AfC help desk, but didn't get an answer.

I don't want to be annoying, but wanted to let you know that many company-related details have just been removed. I would like to resubmit the draft, if you have no objections. If you really see no chance, I'd better submit the draft for deletion and forget this whole thing.

-- Laura at Vonovia (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * as you will notice, I accepted it.  DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you a lot for your time and help with this. Regards, Laura at Vonovia (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:2019 Arunachal anti-PRC riots
 * Draft:Ben Gimpert
 * Draft:Center for European Policy Analysis
 * Draft:Commercetools
 * Draft:Computational Spectroscopy In Natural Sciences and Engineering
 * Draft:Elbridge Gerry Potter
 * Draft:Eric Korpela
 * Draft:Fossil Taxon
 * Draft:Hendrik Jan Leonard Ankersmit
 * Draft:Jenny de la Torre Castro
 * Draft:Laura Sly
 * Draft:Mao Daqing
 * Draft:Navin Doshi
 * Draft:Norbert Thom
 * Draft:Outernet London
 * Draft:Puffs, or: Seven increasingly eventful years at a certain School of Magic And Magic
 * Draft:Rafael A Lima Writer
 * Draft:Rainbow boxes
 * Draft:Saeed Reza Khoshshans
 * Draft:The Great Wine Capitals of the World
 * Draft:TingLi Lucia Lorigiano
 * Draft:TS 18
 * Draft:Uptane
 * Draft:Vitaly Tepikin
 * Draft:WS Audiology
 * Draft:Yulan Grant

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 13
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#606060; background-color:#f8f8f8; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks"> News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (February 2019).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 13th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Scripts Submit your new/improved script here
 * Cscr-featured.svg Cobaltcigs's DiffPreviewFindLine is this month's featured script


 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amorymeltzer's History button links* Headbomb's Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector
 * Interstellarity's Semi-protected edit requests and Extended-protected edit requests


 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Amorymeltzer's Crat Highlighter now has separate colors for each user access level
 * Opencooper's IPtoEmoji has been updated

Pending requests
 * A script to help administrators handle proposed deletions
 * A script to hide newsletters when viewing another user's talk page
 * ...and many more, all available at User scripts/Requests



I hope everyone is having a great year so far! --DannyS712 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

About the newsletter

Subscription options

Discuss this issue

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Cognitive communication disorder
 * Draft:Hallmark Baby
 * Draft:Jasmin Singer
 * Draft:Kostenko Anna
 * Draft:Principality of Pavia
 * Draft:Susie May Ames
 * Draft:TMRW
 * Draft:TS 21
 * Draft:Twinfinite
 * Draft:Yvonne Boag

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Money emoji
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Athaenara • DeltaQuad
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Fishhead64 • Kudpung • Mikaey

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DeltaQuad

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
 * A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news
 * Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present.  You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
 * The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Jaffa Crvenka
I'm afraid you misread the edit history of Jaffa Crvenka. I accepted the draft independently from the sockpuppet and took responsibility for it. Can you please also restore the File:Jaffa Crvenka logo.png? No such user (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * fixed. Thanks for letting me know.  DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:BioSerenity
Hello,

I apologize for the poor quality of the initial translation of the article, I've made. I've simplified the language, made it more neutral and added sources. Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaheris fils de lot (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Betking
Hello, i just want let you know that the page Draft:BetKing you moved to draft space have been updated many times and i think its 60% OK, so i thing maybe you will like to check it out for review or you will move it out of Darft Space. Much Regards (F5pillar 10:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I shalltaqke a look in a dyt or two, in a day or two  DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)