User talk:DGG/Archive 158 Mar. 2020

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. EEng 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)

Draft: The Power of Nutrition
Hi DGG,

Thank very much for your review and comments regarding the Wikipedia draft article on The Power of Nutrition. I have already made offline edits, removing anything that reads like an advertisement and changed the tone to more neutral but did not want to submit yet in case of deletion. I was wondering how I could go about ensuring the article complies to the Wikipedia guidelines enitrely? I think there's still a good variety of independent, reliable, published sources, not just ones produced by the charity. If this does not seem to be the case, could you perhaps point me to specific sections that don't comply, and in your opinion appear to be the problem?

EVS2015 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 13
 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

(UTC)

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)

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)
 * I commented on your talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, followed your advice and added scientific and medical sources (found them here : https://www.bioserenity.com/en/publication/). I tried to stay as neutral as possible. If you still think that it reads like an advertisement or the sources are still not good enough than I'd rather kill the article altogether at this point and wait for the company to grow or other users to chip in. I didn't want to be major contributor and I was merely trying to translate an article from the French Wikipedia that I thought might be of interest. Gaheris fils de lot (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kang Rae-yeon
Hi DDG. You have declined my Draft:Kang Rae-yeon. I know she did one major role. I only wanted to write on the top like the other articles of supporting actors and she is known for her supporting in dramas and movies, because there were several other articles i saw of supporting actors before making this one, even if they did one major it was mentioned on the top of their pages, so i did it like that. I understand one major role is not alot note-able. But kang is known for supporting roles in lot of dramas. I would remove the major role and just write supporting role is that alright then. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.43.67.57 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * probably I shouldn't have reviewed it, since it isn't really my field. But since then, you have resubmitted it, and a much more versatile reviewer has also declined it.  DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Amrutha Suresh
Hi, could you please consider reviewing this draft? I am almost done and I believe it satisfies WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC, and WP:ENTERTAINER. This is my second and last submission after Abhirami Suresh which I requested here and was reviewed by another user. 2409:4073:13:E714:B9F6:640D:CDD8:6C0B (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * this is not really my field. I try to stick to what I  know something about.  DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Muthoot Fincorp Limited
Dear sir, my apologies for not adding reliable source to the article but I was still editing the article when you left message for speedy deletion. I have edited the article and included reliable source. This is simple information about the company and I do not intend to promote it. The tonality of the language is neutral and I have only included facts about the organization. I really want to learn from my mistake. Kindly review and let me know if this article is still showing promotional content in it. I will keep the rules in mind for future reference.

I also saw your warning message to not to create inappropriate page, but I generally write on on organizations which are known to people in India. If I come across any organization in newspapers who is not on Wikipedia, I then do research and create the article. I apologies if my contributions are inappropriate but I tried to write the articles based on facts and figures. Gadgetsgigs (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear sir, I just saw that the page has been redirected to the parent company Muthoot Pappachan Group. Thank you for your feedback. I understood it now completely. I will ensure that it does not happen again. Thank you! Gadgetsgigs (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC) , please do continue. it takes a while to learn, and the only real way to learn is to experiment. A good way to start is to do brief bios of members of the national or state legislatures. We still don't have most of the ones for India, and they all are, current or past, considered appropriate for an article.  DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User page
I've had reason to come and look at your user page a few times and always found it a pleasing experience, which helps. Anyway, just wanted to say that the section "My approach to ANI, AE, and ArbCom" has a couple of spelling mistakes. All the best.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Your Cleanup-PR on Antonio Vidal-Puig
Dear User:DGG: May I request your help to attend the issues posed by your Cleanup-PR tag to this article. I have removed the comment about the scientist´s publications being "highly cited" as in the original, I hope this helps. I would appreciate your further indications or actions to remove any "improper sources" as implied in the tag text. Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I took a look. You are making a good start, but there's a little more to go. Remove every adjective, and rhetorical phrases like " the exploitation of which might one day serve to advance this quest" . Try to replace use of his name with "he" or "him" .  Don't use italics for emphasis.   You need a specific reference immediately after each quotation.  For the section on research, try to express it with  fewer specialized technical terms, and make sure every technical term is linked to the corresponding Wikipedia article.  Then let me know, and I'll see if Ican do anything further.  DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)   DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of article on Barry's Bootcamp
Hi, you requested a speedy deletion of an article I wrote and it was deleted. I cannot get any feedback from editors here; they just tell me it reads like an ad. It's not an ad, though. I wasn't paid. It's a prominent company that didn't have a page, and I've been making edits to pages for years and wanted to start creating pages. Can you please tell me how it read like an ad and what I can do to fix it going forward? Thank you. Djb2183 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * (Just for context, there are two other admins who thought so also.) The problem is a mixture of promotionalism  and notability -- we don't have any good prebuilt form for this, but they tend to go together. I've looked at each of the references, and every one of them is either a mere notice, or a press release, even the one on abc news. They are mostly built of interviews with the founder, who is allowed to say pretty much what he wants to. The confirmation is that they all use the same quotes, and the same 2 photos. This can be a real problem even with what would be common-sense notable subjects in some industries, because unless they're really important, nothing else gets published.   The most actually promotional  parts of the draft are the name dropping, and the plans for expansion, repeated in the lede.  You'll need to find some source that actually discusses the firm without quoting extensively from the founder, and use that as a basis.  DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, I really appreciate this. I'll find new references to form the basis of the article and then I'll re-submit. Super helpful. Many thanks. Djb2183 (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@@@@@@@

Coming back to my article
Hello You asked me to make changes to the article I wrote and you reviewed. I made the changes into a draft. Can you please review it. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Frank_J._Manheim

Fmanheim1 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There's still too much very minor material. And, please refer to him by his last name only, or use just "he", unless there's confusion with other members of the family. Also, if you'rre a member of the family, you have a conflict of interest. Say so on the draft talk page and on your user page. You don't have to specify justwhat the relationsip is, just that there's a conflict of interest.  DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@@@@@@@@

Thank you for the advise Ill be sure to make those changes. Can you please provide me with an example of where you think I put too many minor details? I cant seem to see any part that should be removed. Thank you for your help Fmanheim1 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 09:40:13, 9 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Csengul
This message is regarding the Draft:Dita Přikrylová - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dita_P%C5%99ikrylov%C3%A1 I am trying to understand the notability requirements of Wikipedia - this is a person who has a page in Czech (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dita_P%C5%99ikrylov%C3%A1), and I was thinking she is doing notable work to be covered in English Wikipedia as well. Articles included were about her and were secondary sources evidencing her work and her awards. Could you give a bit more insight into what sources are expected to consider a person notable? Thanks.

Csengul (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , standards at the different WPs vary, and the standard at the english WP in particular has been increasing with time, partly in response to the increased amount of attempted promotionalism . By our current standards, the  sources in the article are either announcements, or pinterviews where the subject says what they care to, which we now consider to not be truly independent. the awards would probably not be considered sufficiently significant here, especially the 30 under 30  which, in all its many variations, is a promotional  gimmick.  DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dita Přikrylová.  DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Questions about draft rejection Clodagh O'Shea
Hi!

I was wondering if you could provide some more details about why this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clodagh_O%27Shea was rejected. I agree that I should add a degree history and will do so, but I am confused about some of the other comments.

The rejection noted that my article was written in a "non-neutral" tone but the only full statement that I have is: "Clodagh C. O'Shea is a professor of molecular and cell biology and current Wicklow Chair at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences and a scholar at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute," which is a statement of fact. Everything else is lists of publications or awards.

In addition, I am confused as to why I need to provide her top 5 cited publications with the number of citations, when this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Rocca was recently approved and has only 3 publications listed without any indication of how often they're cited.

Lastly, the comments include "And any national level awards--not junior awards or awards from their own university." I realize that the awards listed might be perceived as "junior" but the Beckman award is national and comes with a substantial grant and is important enough that it even has its own Wikipedia article. The "distinguished investigator" award is pretty common among other Wikipedia articles for scientists and that particular one was awarded by another national institute with a Wikipedia entry. I've adjusted the citations so that they come from the awarding agency instead of the Salk Institute, in the hopes that maybe that will help.

Thanks! Emiraglia85 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You improved the article enough, and I accepted it.

The point of AfC is to make sure the article would survive an actual deletion discussion., not what I or you might think ought ideally to be in Wikipedia. In the past, before we had the present consensus many articles on academics and researchers were deleted at AfD because people unacquainted with the field did not understand what amounted to academic notability. I understand what meets the present consensus based upon my experience at a few thousand such discussions, and what I always advise is to be on the safe side, rather than try to see what one might possibly get away with. any other advice would be irresponsible of me.

The usual consensus here about what counts as notability according to WP:PROF is the impact upon the profession. For a scientist, impact is normally measured by he extent of citation of one's peer-reviewed article. The number 5 is just a rough guide--within reason, fewer or more is often Ok also--I didn't mean to sound so prescriptive. --in practice, the top 5 I have found often turns out to be just right to clearly show the level, e.g. 250, 200, 150  125, 90 as distinct from 250, 100 , 20, 15, 10. The top one or two in practice is ambiguous--beyond 5 usually doesn't indicate anything further, because the impact from a scientist is their best work. the numbers are indeed not essential, but they help to prevent the article even get nominated for deletion--if the article is challenged, giving these usually proves the case if they are sufficiently high. There are of course other methods of establishing, such as national level awards, or the presidency of the major national society in their field. Again, just what counts as a major award isn't exact ,except that awards from the person's orgnaization always look promotional. Even if the person is notable, a weak article looks like a press release--because the people writing press releases for academics don't really know what's important. We delete press releases, and articles that look like press releases, regardless of notability, because the basic idea of an encyclopedia is that it is different from advertising.  DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC) @@@@@@@

Help me fixing this
Dear This is about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kinita_Kadakia_Patel you just tagged it for speedy deletion, still, it's underwriting kindly allow me to write it, I will fix each and everything, I already spoke to  you can visit his talk page for our conversation. Thanks, ( Shubham Ghodke ) 12:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * it's a request Please remove the tag so that I can edit and it should not get deleted. ( Shubham Ghodke ) 13:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , I am not sure there is sufficient notability to make  it fixable, but the first step is to delete the sentence on prominent clients, which is name-dropping.  But I'll wait a day or two. Since this is   written in   the style of a press release, 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 disclosures.    DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * sincedeleted as copyvio  DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Vagiti Ultimi
Good day, ! I would like to ask a favor if you could take a look at my draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vagiti_Ultimi) and advice for possible changes. Thank you. Piero.hatria (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that it is fixable, because most of the references that do work are mere notices. . First step is to remove all adjectives of praise or quality. Second is to check the references--some do not work Third is to  have someone who is fluent in English check your wording -- phrases like " proposed to the artists a concept on that oral intertwining that title of La trama bucata. " are not understandable English, though I can guess what you probably meant.  . Since this is   written in   the style of a press release, 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 disclosures.    DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@@@@@@@@

Houchang Nahavandi moved to draftspace
This is an Iranian professor and  politician and famous man in Iran Hamaredha (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , There were no readable source. Please try to find a source in English also--for someone in his position this shoul be easily possible. If not, available, translate the title of the publication and of the article, plus whatever it ays that is key to demonstrating notability .  DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC) .  DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@@@@@@

Draft:UVA_method
Hello DGG,

Thank you for your comments to my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:UVA_method. I have made a number of changes as you suggested:
 * the number of divisions was reduced
 * the references list was created
 * the style is less "essay" and more "encyclopedic" (I hope)

Please read in again.

Thank you, best regards

--L. Kolakowski (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , as you can see, it has now been accepted.  DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pepper Group
Hi DGG. Thank you for taking the time to review my draft and for your feedback. 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 these 2 reference can be considered as substantial coverage. They have an overview, description, survey and analysis/commentary from the writer.
 * 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

Please check if the draft can be approved now. Aurdivon (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , promotionalism and borderline notability tend to go together. Just which of the references supporting your articles  provides substantial coverage from a third-party independent reliable sources, not a press releases or mere announcement?
 * Hi . Thank you for the feedback. I looked for references that meets that criteria and listed them below. Please let me know if these are okay.
 * http://www.kanganews.com/news/10705-australian-nonbank-trajectory-still-pointing-up
 * https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/pepper-ceo-mario-raheyem-says-lending-void-too-big-for-nonbanks-to-fill-20190131-h1ap4v
 * https://issuu.com/keymedia/docs/19.10_ipad/30
 * https://issuu.com/keymedia/docs/19.10_ipad/32
 * https://issuu.com/keymedia/docs/mpa_1911_ipad/30
 * https://www.brokernews.com.au/features/cover-story/simplifying-commercial-lenders-reveal-first-steps-to-growth-270450.aspx
 * https://www.brokernews.com.au/news/breaking-news/nonconforming-loans-made-easy-with-pepper-tool-242785.aspx
 * https://www.mpamagazine.com.au/sections/features/valuation-rate-and-property-prices-borrowers-top-concerns-for-2019-261535.aspx
 * https://www.theadviser.com.au/breaking-news/38919-credit-crunch-weakening-borrower-confidence
 * https://www.theadviser.com.au/breaking-news/39750-pickle-money-in-trademark-dispute-with-pepper
 * Aurdivon (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'd like to follow up on the above. Aurdivon (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'd like to follow up on the above. Aurdivon (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I hope you're doing well. Please let me know when you have checked the references above and if their okay. Aurdivon (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:2020 toilet paper shortage
FYI: It was originally written as a joke when I flagged it. KylieTastic (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, the boundary between something too funny to be taken seriously and the actual world seems to be vanishing.  DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Declined submission dec 2019
Dear DGG, if you could find the time, please, see my user talk page - I am slightly lost on where to post what... (and from which account: unfortunately I set up a second one, assuming writing for the engl. wikipedia would require that) - not even sure, whether you received the emails I sent you in december.(?) Anyways, thank you for your patience - I resubmitted the article today. Cheers, Marinus von Eisenstein (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC) (aka Marinus Eisenstein)

question
I had stacked up a ton of drafts in my userspace. I had noticed a lot of times, I move them and later, I had to tag them for deletion. Some users can rename them without leaving a redirect. Can i be enabled to do so? Starzoner (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

SI
Thank you for your comment on my submission. Staten Island women who ran. I don’t have any info on women who ran prior. Do you have suggestions on how to edit my article to cover bases? I thought it was kept factual by saying she was the first woman elected on Staten Island. @@@@@@@@

You're Deleted my Article
Why you deleted my page created of Margareth Angelina ? Angelina Irena 3 (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

First, it is essentially the same as a page deleted by the community in a previous deletion discussion, at Articles for deletion/Margareth Angelina,where she was considered not to meet the requirements for notability at Wikipedia

Second, it is essentially an advertisement.

Additionally, I assume it was undeclared coi editing, and probably undeclared paid editing, on the basis of the corresponding article at the promotional site wikitia-- and on the basis of the other articles that  you have submitted.  DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * as for that site, see the page there on WikiCreators. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Paul Andrews (Scientist)
I've amended the page on Paul Andrews (Scientist) and I'd be grateful if it can be re-reviewed as soon as possible as he's been nominated for the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emesis-historian (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , according to our article Nobel Prize, "the nominees are not publicly named, nor are they told that they are being considered for the prize. All nomination records for a prize are sealed for 50 years from the awarding of the prize".  So what is your evidence?  Given your user name, and given that  this is your only contribution,   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 his organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures.
 * The article claims his work is responsible for a major medical application--what is the evidence of this, aside from his own papers? And what is the evidence for the relative role of Andrews and Sanger in their work?  DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

User:DGGI can assure you that I am not being paid to write about a fellow scientist, nor am I at Prof Andrews’ institution. I have written the article in a neutral way as required. I admire their work and feel it is not well known to the public despite its importance and it having touched many lives for the better. The role of Sanger and Andrews in developments of agents to mitigate chemotherapy-nduced emesis is stated in peer-reviewed papers in top journals, that is, their contributions have been reviewed by peers and are accepted by the research community. The basic science work they contributed to understanding the efficacy of 5HT-3 and NK1 receptor antagonists led to the drugs Granisetron and Emend, that have been and still are prescribed worldwide. Their roles are discussed at length in the Wellcome Trust ‘Witnesses to Contemporary Medicine’ report as is referenced in the article. I haven’t written other articles as I’m new to wiki page writing. I didn’t realise it was as difficult as it seems. That I know of his nomination is part of the usual leaks in the science world that surround the Nobel process, and have for decades, nothing new there. It is not mentioned in the article originally or in the amended version. Reference Daphne Christie; Tilli Tansey, eds. (2007) [https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/14884/1/14884.pdf "The Discovery, Use and Impact of Platinum Salts as Chemotherapy Agents for Cancer", Wellcome Witnesses to Contemporary Medicine, History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, ISBN 978-0-85484-112-7. Emesis-historian (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study ANI
I've created an ANI thread about Hyrdlak's edits. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Paul Andrews (Scientist)
I can assure you that I am not being paid to write about a fellow scientist, nor am I at Prof Andrews’ institution. I have written the article in a neutral way as required. I admire their work and feel it is not well known to the public despite its importance and it having touched many lives for the better. The role of Sanger and Andrews in developments of agents to mitigate chemotherapy-nduced emesis is stated in peer-reviewed papers in top journals, that is, their contributions have been reviewed by peers and are accepted by the research community. The basic science work they contributed to understanding the efficacy of 5HT-3 and NK1 receptor antagonists led to the drugs Granisetron and Emend, that have been and still are prescribed worldwide. Their roles are discussed at length in the Wellcome Trust ‘Witnesses to Contemporary Medicine’ report as is referenced in the article. I haven’t written other articles as I’m new to wiki page writing. I didn’t realise it was as difficult as it seems. That I know of his nomination is part of the usual leaks in the science world that surround the Nobel process, and have for decades, nothing new there. It is not mentioned in the article originally or in the amended version. Emesis-historian (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Reference Daphne Christie; Tilli Tansey, eds. (2007) [https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/14884/1/14884.pdf "The Discovery, Use and Impact of Platinum Salts as Chemotherapy Agents for Cancer", Wellcome Witnesses to Contemporary Medicine, History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, ISBN 978-0-85484-112-7.


 * I'm sorry if this came across as in any way insensitive. You had  unintentionally triggered our sensitiveness to a major problem affecting Wikipedia, a problem for which you are not in any way responsible. With the increasing prominence of Wikipedia and, in particular,  the increasing use of Wikipedia as a source for the first hit and information pages of Google,  there has been an almost unmanageable increase in the attempted use of Wikipedia for promotionalism.In addition to the irresponsible (and illicit) paid editing rings,  many university and other academic PR staff also try to insert promotional articles in Wikipedia , as do sometimes services acting on behalf of individual scientists or even the scientists themselves.  (It's even more widespread in some other fields, but academic articles are what I work on most) Some of do it naively, not realising we are not a suitable medium for PR. Others continue to do this even after our requirements are made clear to them. Some declare their conflict of interest according to our rules, but nonetheless write  articles that are indistinguishable from promotional web pages.
 * Your article had one particular feature of many such articles: the claim that a worker in basics or applied science has done something which will have multiple potential applications to human diseases. Such claims have their place--they are a staple of grant applications, and application for promotion. But they do not belong in an encyclopedia unless they are proven, not just potential; our requirements for these are at WP:MEDRS.  This is not the exact same situation as the usual claim at MEDRS, but it's similar.   The source you've just given will help, but it is not a peer-reviewed review article. If you know of any, by a third party, add them, or tell me here, and I'll adjust the wording.
 * And, frankly, your request said something usually associated with promotional writing: I need this approved right away because ....    DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@@@@@@

AFC Draft Feedback
Hi DGG

Thank you for your feedback and resources. I have submitted the draft again for help to review.

Is there a particular period of time that I have to wait before it gets reviewed?

Thanks

Kutuloncat3 (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the current version, and left a note on your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC) @@@@@@

Paul Andrews (Scientist)
Thanks for the advice DGG. I'll collate some peer-reviewed third party references to support the clinical impact and edit the article again. I totally agree the need to make sure wikipedia articles do not come across as PR. If my draft came across like that it was entirely unintentional. Emesis-historian (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC) @@@@@

Request on 18:47:37, 18 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Luresblow
Luresblow (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for these helpful editorial comments, DGG. I am carefully following all of your directions in this revision. I have sought a more formal and neutral tone, mentioned books only once and removed from the lede, and delegated reviews to references. I am removing any indications of praise and cleanly separating artistic from academic pursuits. There is no conflict of interest. I am a musicologist, so I know Jon McCollum’s work well and can confirm it is having an impact. I have never been his teacher, student, lover, family member or anything like that, and have never even been employed by the same institution, just a professional colleague with some shared interests. I am not in any way compensated – no quid pro quo - for writing this entry. I hope some version of this article can be accepted since it seems worthwhile to have academic profiles on Wikipedia, and he is doing significant work.
 * Please understand that Wikipedia  is used so extensively for promotional purposes, even by academics. This constitutes so much of a danger to the objectivity of the encyclopedia that it's necessary to ask such questions--but we normally accept any good faith assurance--I appreciate your details, but they're not necessary. And we will always primarily rely on people in the same field to contribute articles about what they know.  DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Please consider whether the article can now be approved or if additional edits are necessary. I am not sure if the headings are correctly formatted. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luresblow (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I accepted it, with some modifications: one can't claim "influences" unless some connection is demonstrated, or cited by a third party--we have had people saying they were influenced by everyone famous, from Aristotle to the present. You need to add the schools that gave the degrees, and the dates.,and, preferably, the title of the thesis and the thesis advisor. You should have   specific reference  to the chapters in the reference works.  DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for approving Draft:Parami Energy Group of Companies!
It is my first article, DGG. So there is sense of accomplishment. Much appreciated! Personal82 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , though I have accepted the article because the group is notable, since this is your only contribution, I would like to be assured    whether or not 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 disclosures.    DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

DGG — I am not linked to the organization. But I do have interest in Myanmar and its private sector as a whole. The group is doing meaningful work contributing by supplying electricity to rural communities, one of which I have visited and seen firsthand. Yes, I am a beginner in Wikipedia and intend to grow to create more articles on Burma and few other Southeast Asian countries. Personal82 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Acrylates
Thanks for reviewing and publishing my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaerythritol_tetraacrylate

I have a policy of not arguing with a wiki reviewer but am so glad you pointed out that within reason a chemical article can not be too technical as that is the whole point! However, I checked with other similar articles and I admit I wrote one of them and heavily edited another. They are here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,6-Hexanediol_diacrylate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMPTA

I don't think I have the access rights to change but these three articles should be consistent. TMPTA is shortened in the title but the other two are fully spelled out. I think that should be changed. GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I've moved the page to Trimethylolpropane triacrylate. The abbreviation will continue to work as a redirect.   DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Category deletion
Hi David

I enjoyed reading your bio, especially as we have nothing in common - I'm not an expert in anything but have a remarkably good eye for spelling errors! I have however always edited under my real name, not a particularly brave thing though, as I rarely get involved in fashionable or contentious subjects.

Could you please look at the deletion of Category:Gilbert and Sullivan performers? I became aware of this when one of the articles on my watchlist had this category removed as the category no longer existed. Gilbert and Sullivan is a well-defined and unique body of work, (not one I particularly enjoy, but have been subjected to four or five performances in the genre) and many performers have made it a speciality, and defines them as an artist; it's not just a casual association. Category:Shakespearean actors comes to mind as analogous.

When an article is put up for deletion, users who have shown an interest are usually pinged, but who gets notified about CfD? Is the only solution to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion in case something in which I'm interested comes up? Doug butler (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Asking for help and explanation
Hi, I have not been around for some years but back aagain to contribut. Now with art. on Polish Wiki with help of historian, great pleasure. I diont know you and I dont knowe if you can help - noramally I woudl ask my very good friend Malik Shabazz that was admin before and where we where discussing questions regarding Jewish history. Malik is fantastic person but i see that he is not aorund here anymore.

To the question, please tell me what are the rules. The issue is this. We have several persons that belong to family X (same surname) and also belong to Clan, lets call it oz. "Oz" So there is a cathegory for family X of Oz. Hwne entering this cathegory, I see all the memebers of the family (art. on WIki). I then see sub-cathegory that is Oz! When clicking on Oz, i will see all the families that belong to Oz. And then I can choose any family.

Now, I wanted to add cathegory "Oz" to every person that is of Oz, that is beside cathegory family X of Oz. In that way - I can unite all the Clan Oz, all the people that are of same Clan. Now, on pl:wiki, they say that I can not add cathegory Oz, because i will double - it means that one person can be in two different places - first under cathegory famly X of Oz and then also in the cathegory OZ that uniete everyone in the Clan.

My question is - how to solve problem with double and if there is no solusion, can I add cathegory Oz or not? It will double but we also can in this way unite all the Clan - and that is main goal, not to divide but to unite. Please help and advise! camdan (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "clan" is it a situation with well- defined clans for which there is supporting evidence of membership, or just a vague tradition? Please give me some examples. You mentioned Judaism,  but I don't think  this refers to Jews, although we do  have a category for Levites   DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Zimin
Hello. I have rewritten the article Draft:Dmitry Zimin that you have previously draftified. Could you please take a look at it? --colt_browning (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Any kind of response will be appreciated. --colt_browning (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I made some further copyedits for conciseness, and accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --colt_browning (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 19:15:30, 21 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mw learner
Hi there, I have been researching Dr Syra Madad and was intending to create a wiki page on her. However, I saw that a draft had already been created but then declined for lack of notability. I was therefore wondering if you could elaborate on why you think Dr Madad fails to meet the notability critiera? Having checked WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO, I believe Dr Madad is notable enough for inclusion based on the following criteria:

WP:ACADEMIC

'''Criteria 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.''' (Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.)

Dr Madad has been frequently cited in the media with regards to her expertise in infectious disease, especially during the current coronavirus pandemic. She was also selected as an expert for the Netflix documentary 'Pandemic: How to Prevent an Outbreak'.


 * https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-expert-in-infectious-disease-preparedness-on-training-frontline-staff-2020-3?r=US&IR=T
 * http://www.news12.com/story/41885952/nyc-doctor-to-be-featured-in-new-netflix-docuseries-about-pandemics
 * https://www.vox.com/2020/3/15/21179296/coronavirus-covid-19-social-distancing-bored-pandemic-quarantine-ethics
 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-ideas-to-fight-the-flu-1542723951
 * https://www.bkreader.com/2019/01/28/kings-county-hospital-prepares-for-pandemic-outbreak-with-emergency-drill/
 * https://1010wins.radio.com/media/audio-channel/in-depth-coronavirus-pandemics
 * http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2019/nov/07/nyc-health-hospitals-urges-continuity-federal-fund/
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-program-protecting-us-from-deadly-pandemic-is-about-to-expire/2019/12/27/7c216c26-2280-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html

WP:BIO

The subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Based on the sources listed above (and others not included), I believe this constitutes significant coverage of the subject.

Mw learner (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Unlike the previous editor, you have some experience here in writing articles, and you have good work to your credit (looking at them, there are also af ew problems, which I will mention on your talk page). I think you could reasonably try to develop the page and resubmit it. It needs a good deal of bio added, but sources are available.
 * the problem here is that giving news interviews on matters of current concern is not making a major impact, but pure routine.  (there have been a few very exceptional occasions where the interviews themselves have been matters for substantial coverage elsewhere, but I don't think that's the case here. )  What usually qualifies under that provision is  a very senior  bureaucrat, or someone who would equally well be notable under other criteria--for example, an author who has written important popular science books,  or a very influential journalist. There needs to be some strong actually independent evidence, not just customary hype about qualifications given by the publication--most of them are written by the person or their  press agent.  For example  -- notice the PR-style vagueness about exact dates and other details.
 * Normally, her position has head of a small very specialized unit in a city's health department  would not be likely to be considered notable  But this is not normal times, and there is likely to be public interest in the qualification and background of people giving information on contagious disease. The problem here will be NOT NEWS.  Obviously we're covering the pandemic in great detail, and our crowdsourcing can be more effective than ordinary reporting at keeping up to date on major events.   But this may be considered peripheral.
 * Try it and let me know, & I will probably accept it. The guideline for passing AfC is whether it would pass AfD in mainspace; usually I can tell from experience, but this one is hard to predict.    DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@@@@@@@

Articles for Deletion - ZunRoof
Hello,

I was publishing a page ZunRoof for my friend but it got marked for articles for deletion. Can you please help me approve it. Is there any way I can get help to get it approved. Would compensation for the article work? Please let me know what can I do to get it approved.

Kind Regards! --Aj30003000 (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You apparently do not understand what the purpose of Wikipedia is. It is not for advertising, or publishing pages about one;'s friend's enterprises. The people who write here work as volunteers, including the administrators such as myself. One of the most foolish things you could do here is exactly what  you have just done, offered to pay an administrator here for help in keeping an article.  DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)



Draft Review
Namaste DGG.

I joined Wikipedia recently and I have gone through some of the most important Wikipedia guidelines like GNG, NPOV and NCORP. I have edited a few articles to familiarize myself and I wrote about a company (link), I no longer work for (but still declared a COI). I came to know that a previous attempt was taken down through AfD and you were a participant in that talk. FYI, I strongly emphasize on NPOV so I have not promoted the company. Could you please help me review its new AfC draft and possibly suggest any improvements. It would help me become a better editor in the days to come! Thanks in advance!

Trinityfire (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC) @@@@@@@

Draft review
I revised the page you reviewed earlier and think I incorporated all your suggestions. Could you take a look again? Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Reinhart_Ceulemans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saravicca (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Make sure your references go somewhere--look at reference 6. Remember we need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The ref in The millennials, for example, is a mere mention; the others seem like disguised press releases  And, since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in exactly the format of a press release, 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 disclosures.    DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@@@@@

Draft:Syra Madad
Hello DGG, I expanded it a bit and made it more respectable. What do you think about it ? I think it's quite close to wikipedia level. Yug (talk)  17:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

, you still need to remove some adjectives of praise or importance, check the section headings, reconsider if the article about her should be a guide to her routine statements about COVID, and try to find a better source for what she has accomplished tha her own statements in an interview  DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Press release
Hi DGG, looking to talk about which part of the article makes you believe Draft:Renowned LA is a press release? I kept it short for this reason (it's easier to get feedback).


 * The first sentence and a half is basic overview and history
 * The latter part of the second sentence is about who wears it to establish WP:SIGCOV
 * The final sentence is about who I've found this company has worked with and who covers subject, again for WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV guidelines

I'm thinking the later part of the second sentence where the article states celebrities who wear the brand could be redundant for WP:SIGCOV since its established in the following sentence.

I'm looking to create a few articles to keep me entertained during the Covid-19 pandemic and could use some feedback so every article I make over the next week or two doeesn't get deleted. I plan to use similar format when creating my stubs (overview and history then basic notability references). Pilot333 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , The draft's content is almost entirely name-dropping: the personal names of various celebrities who have worn their clothing, and the name of companies they work with . However, one of the refs is WWD; it's not accessible to non-subscribers, but if the coverage therew as substantial rather than a mere notice, it might be possible to write an acceptable article. In trying to write something here, the best way is to make sure you have three very good references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements before you start writing.  The better the sources, the more confident you can be that your efforts will be successful.  DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , how would say Daily Paper or Enfants Riches Déprimés is any better than what I wrote?

@@@@@@@@@@@

Draft: Giuliana Galli Carminati
Hello, I hope to be doing the right thing here. I have resubmitted the Draft of Giuliana Galli Carminati Wikipedia page. I have beefed up the professional part and I have removed all self-published material but one. I have added several high-impact professional publications, several with more than 10 citations.

I hope this helps. Thanks for your review and best regards. Federicocarminati (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * For a biomedical scientist to show sufficient impact by their citations, the level that is expected at AfD is at least one and preferably two publications with 100 or more citations. Her most cited papers have 53, 48, 26, 19, .... . I didn't invent that level, I just observe that it's the level that has been accepted by the consensus at current discussions. The point of accepting an article at AfD is to accept those that the community will accept. Sometimes its difficult to tell, but in this case it seems clear.  Please remember that what Wikipedia calls "notability " has no necessary relationship to ultimate importance in the world.  DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Advice on a situation
If you don't mind, I could use some advice or input on a situation, not sure if I'm overreacting, under reacting, or acting appropriately, as the situation is sort of unique. This started when I placed a notability maintenance template as part of NPP and was working with the page creator here to explain the concerns. Apparently, I did not respond to his latest comment quick enough and came back to see that some article I created seven years ago had been stripped and gutted, by the user's own admittance as an act of retribution, further comments here. I reverted the edits he made, as I saw it as a WP:WITCHHUNT and an effort to be destructive instead of constructive and explained such and invited the user to comment on his concerns on the talk page. When the user started in with more passive-aggressive statements, judgments on my contributions, and empty apologies, I chose to try to WP:DISENGAGE and ask the user to stop what I perceived as harassing and continuing comments. I reverted one last time the users edits stating I would need time to review what is wrong with the article and their actions couldn't be viewed as constructive. From that the user has now set another passive aggressive deadline on me in their most recent comment on the Lucky Lou's talk page..

I'll be the first to admit, the Lucky Lou's article is problematic and in need of help and possibly not even notable. I had actually completely forgotten about this article that was created in my Wiki infancy. I would like to improve the article, but I feel that any edits I make would be met with interference and more unwanted interactions with this user. I also am concerned whether or not this user is performing the same acts of retribution against other reviewers/editors who are critical of their work. I could have handled the situation better by probably not reverting their edits and just coming back after a few days. I'm likely just going to wait for the user to move on in a continuing effort to WP:DISENGAGE as much as possible. Just wondering if I have some sort of responsibility in letting a third party know about this, to see if this user has done such actions in the past, since from what I understand retribution and unconstructive edits like this are very much against quite a few policies and I wouldn't want to see other reviewers/patrollers discouraged or attacked. Sorry to bring a bit of drama to your door, but I know you will give a fair assessment of the situation, including the things I could have done differently. If you want me to take the whole thing elsewhere, that's fine too. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I shall take a look.
 * But to notify me about something like this, I think it's better just to ask me to look at the history of the article and its talk page, and then I will be able to examine whatever may have been going on with any preconceptions.  DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * having taken a look, the only way to handle situations like this is to not get bothered by them. It isn't easy -- I get a few misguided reverts a year; it is impossible to actually win an argument about them, but I remember every one of them & keep trying to imagine some way to go back & do that. No matter how dispassionate I pretend to be, I do like to win arguments--fortunately. this place has the virtue that there's always so many other issues.   DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

A question about the visual editor
Hi man, I noticed some time ago English wikipedia doesn't have any longer an option of visual editing while wikipedia in other languages keeps providing such an option.

Could you confirm it's true or maybe it's available in another place?

If it's not available any more, do you know the reason? Grillofrances (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * We have visual editor available, but it works only on Article and Draft pages, not on talk pages. To enable it, Go to your user preferences at the top of any page, select the "Editing" tab. In the section "Editing" there will be an item called "Editing mode" offering you 4 choices. Select the one saying "Show me both editing tabs", and save (at the bottom) If necessary, clear the cache according to the instructions there. You should then see two tabs at the top of any article or draft page: Edit, and Edit source.  "Edit" is the visual editor.   I use both--they each have their advantages.  DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I use both as well because in some situations (editing a table including pasting data or inserting links), the visual editor is more useful while for other situations (like styling a table), the text editor is either more useful or the only possible option. Grillofrances (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

House of Roper-Curzon
Any idea if Roper-Curzon family is a notable topic? As per off-wiki evidence, it was created for payment and there is a possible case of sockpuppetry as well. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 02:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * there is no such family. For the actual history see the most recent accurate version of the article on Baron Teynham.  . The later versions of that article are contaminated by the same imaginative genealogy. . DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case it must be nominated for deletion. I have reverted the most recent edits at Baron Teynham to non-coi version and dropped you an email. This looks like the same sockfarm. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 06:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm surprized how this page was moved to main by user just within four minutes of its creation. Most of the sources have no mention of the family and/or aren't reliable so, can you please take a look? GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 16:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was planning to check this aspect also. But it is very easy for a reviewer to make a mistake like this when working in unfamiliar fields. There's also a factor of special knowledge: as a librarian I know the inaccuracy of the usual sources for UK genealogy, & I've kept track of previous discussions here in that area. I  therefore look closely at any entry on a historic English family that isn't from a known reliable editor.  Additionally, many reviewers (including me) are making an attempt to immediately accept anything that seems to them clearly worthy.  DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How different is the current article from the House of Roper-Curzon article which was AfD deleted a couple of months ago? It looks like it has the exact same notability/sourcing/OR issues that were brought up in the discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks almost the same. DGG can please G4? GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 16:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Curb Safe Charmer. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Hall's Safe & Lock Co., and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Bruce Watson (writer)
Thank You!!!!

Draft: R Dub!
Draft: R Dub! you rejected the article, and I'm really confused as to why. There are 2 main reasons given for the rejection: lack of neutral / professional tone and lack of independent published sources. Could you tell me what's lacking in the first one? The 2nd one I'm just really confused by, because there are tons and tons of independent sources cited, including newspapers from various locations. Another proofreader previously asked if this person really is notable and deserves an article, so I was told to add awards proving notoriety (which I did) and to cite articles proving notoriety (which I mentioned on that proofreader's talk page and added as a note on the draft article). Could you clue me in? I'm just baffled at this point, because the article follows an exact format that I copied from other radio DJs who have articles, so if theirs are good enough, and this article follows the exact same style and format, I don't get why those are published and this one isn't. Glad for any pointers. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithryanallen (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There are many 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. But before we go into details, since this is your only contribution,   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 disclosures.    DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not for pay, I don't work with this person or anything like that. Just personal interest. I've edited articles in the past but never started one on wikipedia. I've done much more on wikitravel than on wikipedia itself.Smithryanallen (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Apr 23 - any additional thoughts? I highlighted 'wiki 3' and notoriety as requested by a previous reviewer so looking for guidance on how to move forward. Thanks. Smithryanallen (talk)

Draft: Rocco Lupoi
Draft: Rocco Lupoi You claimed a personal opinion that the article was: "This is a promotional press release, not an encyclopedia article." Which is not based on any more explanation. This appears to be a poor justification, as the article entirely relies on external primary and secondary sources that are suitable to the "reliability" policy of wikipedia i.e. Reputable Newspapers and Media; and Academic Research Papers. Secondly on the lack of neutrality in the tone of some phrases, as it was outlined back in december by Taewangkorea, this has been corrected and rectified, to match the neutral tone standard of wikipedia. As such there is no evidence of "promotion" apart from your personal, perhaps biased judgement. I would appreciate the opinion of another Wikipedia Editor. Comment added by JackK19 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think he means that subject needs notability. Researchers require a significant discovery of some sort to warrant an article of their own. What makes this scholar comparable to the achievements of another like Jordan Peterson? Pilot333 (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * My advice:


 * The role of AfC is not to judge articles, but to predict whether the community is likely to accept an article at AfD.
 * there are two possible standards for this article, WP:PROF, and WP:GNG. WP:PROF is not part of WP:GNG, but a separate guideline, and the usual way of meeting it is to show an impact on the profession through the evidence of highly cited peer-reviewed articles or books from major academic presses--there are a few auxiliary guideline such as major prizes which more ofr less amount to  the same thing.  We judge the amount of citations according to the field, but this is a matter of judgment for each individual AfD; the one definitely clear level is in the biomedical  sciences where at least one or preferably two papers with over 100 citations each is expected. Most other fields have a lower density of publication and thus a lower level, butt here's no specific figure.  It is not explicitly a comparison with others, though that is a factor which can help in thinking about the necessary level.  There are many ways of doing influential work, and "significant discovery" is often too specific a term. AfD is too erratic for direct comparisons with other articles.  Having one inappropriate articles does not mean we should have another, while having unwisely rejected a suitable article does not imply we should reject another.  But the comparison here is not relevant, because Jordan Peterson is noto only in a completely different field, but even more important, he is not only notable, but extremely notable, and I might even say famous.  People do not have to be at that level to warrant an article.


 * Promotionalism is a separate factor. Any one reason for WP:NOT is reason for exclusion, and NOT ADVOCACY is at least as important as NOT INDISCRIMINATE.


 * Looking at this specific draft: I made an error is judging it unlikely to meet notability. First, it should have been judged by WP:PROF, the highest citation figures are 79, 79, 63, 61. Materials science is a field without an established consensus at afd, but this is significant enough to make it quite possible that it would be considered to meet WP:PROF. So that part is OK, & I just re-reviewed to remove that tag.
 * The question then is promotionalism. I judged it promotional on the basis of the information about grants. The size of the grant is a matter of great concern to universities and consequently to researchers, for it is a very important factor is whether they will keep a researcher. It is not of much value to the reader of an encyclopedia, and material of interest primarily to the subject or his bosses is considered promotional  here.  In particular to be one of a number of researcher members of a department listed in a grant to the department is irrelevant--such a grant lists everyone possible to make a case for the overall merit of the unit.
 * Patents are considered irrelevant unless exploited to a notable extent. Universities patent everything possible in the hope of a windfall. If judged as an inventor of a particular patented process, we'd first have to judge the process notable. Therefore the mention of possible commercial applications is also usually promotional  . It can be mentioned, but not emphasized.
 * The article is fixable. The intent of using the tag is that the article get fixed. So,, fix it and resubmit.  List those highly cited papers, don't bother about the grants. Let me know, & I will accept it.  DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@@@@@@

Draft:Benchmark School
Can G11 be used here since it just survived an AfD? Sulfurboy (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right thatI should let someone else deal with it. I removed the G11.  DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a nightmare of a draft. However, with how many people are monitoring it and the page creator's obvious unwillingness to improve it, there's zero chance it goes anywhere anyways. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you David, I'll try to gather the source and write other relevant articles that I know! Will work for the next draft articles in my free time from school! Appreciate it! Antony Willianson (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC) @@@@

EarlySalary page
Hi, this is in about the page on EarlySalary that was deleted recently. I created the EarlySalary page after seeing that it had a million-plus customers and is fairly popular in its countrry. My understanding is that this makes it worthy of a page. I ended up re-reviewing the page and removing what seemed to me, on second glance, potentially promotional. Promotion of the topic was not my intention. I genuinely believe, given the company's metrics and stats, that they are notable enough. Could you help me with what would be needed to reinstate? Thanks! Ymed07 (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Our standard for notability of companies is at WP:NCORP}}: references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. This is not the same as size or popularity of number of customers. Not only must the subject of an article be notable by our definition, but the article must be non-promotional: 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. We're an encyclopedia, not a guide to businesses. Promotionalism is typically addressed to prospective customers/investors/donors/students/applicants/ etc. In contrast, an encyclopedia article is addressed to the general reader who may have heard of the organization, and wants to know what it is and something about what it does.
 * In addition to myself, 2 other experienced administrators here have judge that the article draft was promotional, or the firm not notable, or both.
 * In addition to you, several other editors have tried to create an article on this company. It is therefore 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 disclosures.    DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I had been trying to contact the other person who flagged this page but got no response, so it's been a somewhat disappointing experience in the community so far. But I do appreciate you taking the time out to explain the situation. Since I am able to see pages for much smaller (and lesser known) companies in India, I'm guessing the page removal was more to do with the content style than the brand's notability. Would you mind assisting me with what is required for an acceptable submission? Looking forward to learn and iterate! Ymed07 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Vestigial AFC markup
Not sure if something is up with the script, but I noticed four or five articles your published to mainspace had quite a bit of vestigial AfC markup in it. I went through and cleaned it all out, but you might want to keep an eye out in case there is some sort of bug with it. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks--it's my usual fault--moving to the next one too quickly to notice. I'll try to remember to check thta it works right. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Help needed!
Hello David Goodman! My draft article: Robam Kenorei was declined earlier! These few days I have edited and added some information to the draft article. The reference for this dance is very rare, I could find only a few on internet! I did my best seeking help from others as well! This dance was almost vanished during the Cambodian civil war. I believed creating the article about this dance will allow others who have access to its sources to edit it! I need somebody to improve it as well but I dont know where we can get help for this draft article! This draft article will be a new article with the title "Robam" of the Royal Ballet of Cambodia like other articles such as Robam Tep Apsara (now Apsara Dance), Robam Sovann Maccha, Robam Moni Mekhala,...

Please check my edition to the draft article and inform me whether it is ready for approval! I need other editors to improve it as well! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony Willianson (talk • contribs) 15:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * . you are correct that having it in mainspace will make it more visible to others who might want to work on it, so I accepted it. And I certainly urge you to continue on related topics. You might want to ask the Dance wikiproject for help with sourcing.  DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)