User talk:DGG/Archive 170 Mar. 2021

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
 * A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?

Arbitration
 * By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.


 * The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Disambiguation link notification for March 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Environment and Sustainable Development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Region.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Juan Cabrera Garrido
Hi DGG. Thank you very much for your advice. I will begin to introduce the changes you indicate to me. Regards, --Tulkas76 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Good morning. Requested changes from NowMedical
Hi DGG. I was hoping you might be willing to take a look here and provide any feedback. Thank you. MarthaLuke (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I started commenting; if nobody else does, I'll make what changes I think best in a few days.  DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG. No rush but just wanted to check-in on this. MarthaLuke (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:David Lempert
... Sources for review
 * Have any good sources for reviews? I found this, Google Scholar, but am having difficulty weeding through all of it. Philly jawn (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another good source for book reviews is WorldCat. If you search for an author, first come the author's written, edited, and coedited books, than their chapters in books, their journal articles, the book reviews they have written, and, often, at the end are reviews about their books that have been published in JStor and MUSE journals, and sometimes in some other places.  It's incomplete, but convenient.  It's what I usually check first, because I've been familiar with the tricks and inadequacies of OCLC/Worldcat since its beginnings in the 1970s,    DGG ( talk ) 12:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added more references, from reviews of his work. I think this is ready to be moved to the mainspace. Philly jawn (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts? Philly jawn (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirror Wikitia
Hey DGG,

First, I would like to thank you for all of the work that you do on Wikipedia. Second, I was looking through some AFC drafts and found a couple comments of yours that were concerning. On the pages Draft:Julia Ivanova (filmmaker) and Draft:Daniel Primetzhofer you state that the drafts have been copied from the site Wikitia. However, that is incorrect. Wikitia is a mirror site that copies pages from Wikipedia (such as Articles for creation submissions) and then charges people to edit them. You can read more about it at User:Gobonobo/Wikitia, User:SamHolt6/SEO wiki mirrors, and Mirrors and forks/VWXYZ. MarkZusab (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . thanks for alerting me about this--I shall have to check the drafts. If what is copied is changed material from there, then   using it  here is a copyvio. Otherwise it raises questions about coi editing, but I also gather that sometimes they reprint articles without a request from the author.  DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Larry Lawton
You nominated the page for deletion in 2016, and I've taken to re-writing it. The article was largely unchanged from its creation in 2010 and it really read like a bloody ad. He's covered extensively in print newspaper sources which I've clipped and collected. Any help expanding or writing the page is welcome. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It still needs work. I moved it to Draft space as Draft:Larry Lawton. . After you fix it, let me know.  DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It still cites his own book which is a big no-no and will have to be fixed. I haven't touched most of the newspaper articles and I'm really looking for more newspaper reporting that covers the actual investigation and arrest. I've found Philly and Florida papers covering that. A lot of them refer to him as "Lawrence R. Lawton" or "Lawrence Robert Lawton" which makes finding sources a bit harder to find. For sources about him, they mostly end at 2013, with the last in 2017. His Reality Check program got a lot of attention in 2013. Most of his media appearances after that is mostly just him commenting on some heist and not really talking about him so it's not that useful for a Wikipedia article. He also has a business advising companies how to avoid being robbed, but I haven't seen any newspapers cover any of that. And funny enough, despite having a Youtube channel with 1 million subs I haven't seen any reliable sources actually discuss that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you aren't able to improve it, it will be routinely deleted in 6 months.  DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Just that it's gonna look a tad bit odd, because he has 1 million subs on youtube, but no reliable sources have talked about his Youtube career. But most people are likely to check his page due to seeing one of his videos. The robberies, the reality check program, the mentoring program, and book, seem to be what has been reported. Likely another media appearance will mention it one day. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Article has been completely re-written, submitted, and given a C rating. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Related, but appears to be Larry Lawton himself, and has made edits to his own page and his userpage reads like an advertisement. He hasn't edited since 2010 though. There's also who's only made edits to the page in 2017 who could also be larry (name, lives in Florida, released in 2007). I suspect other users editing the page have a connection to Larry as well which is why the page read like an advertisement until I re-wrote it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I noticed the user page. It might well fit under the speedy criterion U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. I am undecided between editing the article further, or sending it to AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not too keen on people using Wikipedia for advertisement. Those two accounts seem to be Lawton himself (one admits it, and the other edits only his page and the page for the city he lives in), and others were also writing very similar promotional style material could either be more Lawton accounts or one of his associates. And that user page violates rules on self-promotion. Even curiouser, a user banned for sock accounts,, made several edits to the page and voted keep in the deletion debate. No idea if it's related in any way. And the writers misused sources, where they buried valid criticism of the program by a school administrator that was quoted at length and only used the source to say positive things about it. I'm really not keen on that either.


 * Well, regardless of why the article was made it's been cleaned up now into a proper page using third party reliable sources (22 so far, with 14 in depth about Lawton). If you have any suggestions on how to improve I'm open. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of all the suspicious users for the page: Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - promo language, only edits Larry's page and the city he lives
 * - banned sockpuppet user, could be unrelated
 * - promo language, admits to being Larry Lawton
 * - Promo language, edits only Larry's page

Gave a COI warning to all the users, expanded the article to 1300 words, and sources are at 32 so far. Austrian paper Der Standard did a profile on his youtube channel so I can finally mention he has one.Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will look again tomorrow  DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Message mention
I also got a notification that I was mentioned by you - but am unable find it -can you point me in the right direction as well? Gaw54 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I inadvertently overrode the previous message from a different user on this same matter. I can't figure out how to get it back. Sorry.Gaw54 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ,  The message was :

I declined Noma Copley (February 13): Notable, but this draft is overly personal and informal.}}. (and I restored the other message)  DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Mares (historian)
Hi! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Mares_(historian) I just want to want to warn you that this page is totally fake. The wiki article is based entirely off references from websites that Mareš clearly made himself, his books by "academic publishers" are self-published theses, and he misrepresents at least one popular science article he wrote as an academic article. He also claims to have written an article for Past & Present, which is basically the most famous history journal in the world, even though that's clearly not true https://academic.oup.com/past/issue/240/1 this is the issue referenced in the Wiki article, he just posted an article on ResearchGate and wrote there that it's been published in Past & Present.

It might look as a very serious, well-referenced page. But if you check the details, most - if not all of it - it's pure fantasy.

--95.252.80.190 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * it was rather different when I accepted it But I should have notice the rather odd mix of fields even in that version, .  and I do feel rather embarrassed..  I will first check if the English Historical Review articles and the Classical Review article are real.   And GRIN verlag seems to warrant some investigation--ck his uk.amazon p.  and the publishers p. on. us amazon., and I suppose elsewhere.  DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello 95.252 and DGG. I agree that the page on Martin Mares (historian) does not inspire confidence. I made one edit to remove the claim he had published in Past & Present 08/2018; 240(1). From that journal's website it is clear that the August, 2018 issue contains no article by him. GRIN Verlag does appear to be a self-publisher, based in their German article, but specializing in theses. I couldn't verify that Martin Mares has a doctorate from anywhere in particular. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * GRIN is not exactly a self publisher in the usual American sense--the continental European custom of publishing (and paying for) the printing of a doctoral theses is still I think active in some countries and fields. GRIN seems to be doing that, and for other academic material also. I cannot verify the other publications either. AfD tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Martin Mares (historian)


The article Martin Mares (historian) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Most of the references provided here are self-made (providing links to self-publishing platforms such as researchgate, ORCID or other social media) or completely made-up (as in the case of university affiliations). There is also some true information, but it’s hardly of any encyclopedic interest.)"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 87.19.10.37 (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
 * A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?

Arbitration
 * By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.


 * The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Your comments on the proposed deletion of Richard Moorhead
Hello DGG,

I'm not sure if you saw my response to your note on Rlmoorhead69's user talk page, but in case you didn't, please see the below. I would appreciate your comments! Thank you! Harriett Potter (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems the page Richard Moorhead was flagged for deletion quite a few years ago, but in accordance with the advice note above, would not be deleted if amended. However, I believe this page contravenes the Wikipedia notability guidelines and conflict of interest guidelines, given that the page seems to have been created and most recently edited by the page's subject. Please could Richard Moorhead page be re-visited for proposed deletion, and please could it be explained why it wasn't deleted once deletion was originally proposed. (Note: this message is by no means intended to detract from the subject's contributions and achievements, it merely suggests that the page contradicts Wikipedia's guidelines and should therefore be deleted]. Thank you. Harriett Potter (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that the individual has published a second book, which I added. It is not obvious to me whether or not he would be considered to meet the requirements of WP:PROF, or whether sources could be found that would meet the WP:GNG It would need to be considered at an AfD. If there is an AfD, I might participate in it, but I cannot say in advance what would be my !vote. The community would decide.  DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for help with a request for clarification
Thank you for commenting at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. The discussion seems deadlocked, and several users suggested the need for ArbCom to clarify what they mean by 'academically focused'. User:Girth Summit mentioned they are considering doing so but they are not familiar with the 'paperwork'. I would be happy to contribute to such a request as well. Perhaps you'd be willing to help draft and format such a request, as a neutral party and a former arbitrator who already gave some thought to this issue? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, Before I joined arb com, I consistently advised that it was not likely to help any situation to go to arb com; now, with the experience of having served there 5 years, I know enough to say so all the more  strongly. Even more important, it is not the place of arb com to decide on sourcing, and trying to resolve a subject dispute by asking them to do so is leading them in a direction they should not go.  If you do take it to arb com, I will comment by urging them to remove the entire remedy as an error, it being outside their legitimate scope, and a violation of the authority given them by the community.  You may copy my full comment here to the discussion if you wish.  The solution is to find a compromise.  DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For the entire remedy to be ditched is certainly an outcome that I think should be considered. The trouble with compromise here is that the remedy is fairly binary. My initial take on it (before I'd read the remedy) was similar to yours - a decent source, but defer to academic work where they differ. Once the wording of the remedy was pointed out to me by El C, I had to agree that it was not permissible. I wouldn't want Arbcom to make a ruling on that particular source - I agree that's outside their scope - but I am intending to ask them to clarify the wording of that remedy, or to vacate it entirely, which should allow us to move on in this particular case an avoid such situations in future. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I concur that ArbCom should not rule on a particular source - it is out of their scope and would open them to be even more overworked than they already are. Hence as GirthSummit notes, what is needed is a clarification of the 'academically focus' wording, or, preferably, vacating the remedy as 'good intention' that didn't work out. Indeed, I also think it is not necessary and creates an unfair burden on editors in this topic area (chilling effect with editors being scared of adding sources that are fine everywhere else, which in turn can lead to long term under sourcing/under-development of this topic area - heck, it is "safer" to add unreferenced content now than referenced one, since adding unreferenced content is mostly ignored, but adding referenced one can result in a visit at AE!). RNS/RFC and like have always worked in the past for sourcing disputes. It would be good to retire this remedy before it is adopted into other topic areas, causing trouble for more editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My view on this is that arb. having said its usually carefully ambiguous statement, the community should interpret it as they think best. Here I will contribute my experience: two or three arbs are selected to draft the outcomes, their proposals are first discussed on an internal mailing list & wiki, and then discussed during the voting at proposed decision, often in response to the community questions there. In practice, the result is that some remedies are very carefully crafted for precise wordings after long discussions; some are just accepted as the drafters propose. I have no way of knowing what happenned here, but the problem is apparently a discrepancy between the prior admins ruling, and the statement of arb com, which are not identical. You're asking for a fine distinction between academic and academically-oriented, but each  of the two covers a wider range or quality and reliability. The range of meanings of each of them overlap the other.  Clarifying which wording is meant will not necessarily answer either the immediate problem, or other similar problems, because there will still be ambiguity, as is inevitable for most of our content guidelines,  It seems to be obvious that having read quite a variety of historical works, (tho, as I said, not in this particular subject), that if reliability goes from 0 to 10, popular works rank from 0 to 8 and academic works from 5 to 9. Nothing is 10: no historical interpretations are final. University presses rely for their financial survival on having either universally adopted academic publications, or very popular semi-academic ones. The are quite willing to publish unusual but interesting works on widely -read topics that they think will sell several thousand copies ; the profits from these partialy cover the losses on the more esoteric works that will sell only a few hundred. My maxim remains that no source is completely reliable, and no source so unreliable as to be useless. Any attempt to schematicize this for decision making is naïve, whether by arb com or RfC. there is usually some way of wording the use of a source to indicate its limitations to the reader, and that's what I mean by compromise.  (And I repeat that I am talking in generalities, not about this particular book, which I have not read and therefore cannot evaluate. As a librarian I could guess, as librarians do when they decide whether or not to purchase a book, using various indications that can be taught, combined with intuition, but that's not critical or scholarly evaluation.  (I wonder if it would help to limit the discussions to those who have actually read the sources.) But if you want to confuse things further, go to arb com. If you want to help our readers, use it with qualifications.  DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , "I wonder if it would help to limit the discussions to those who have actually read the sources.". As a sidenote, at least two people criticizing the source in that particular RfC have clearly not read it as they made the false claim it has no footnotes... but of course, there is no way to really 'test' if someone has read a source or not, unless they make an obvious mistake like that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I know you're talking a lot of sense here, and I can find very little to disagree with in what you've said; I don't really feel comfortable though with where that logic takes us.
 * We've got an experienced editor challenging the use of a source, presumably in good faith, because they perceive it as contravening an arbcom remedy. A number of very experienced editors (including, FWIW, three admins) have indicated that, in their view, this source would be excluded by the spirit and the wording of that remedy; a number of very experienced editors, including yourself, have indicated that they feel it would be allowed by the remedy, and that we should assess how to use it as we would any other source.
 * I have to acknowledge that your knowledge and experience far exceed my own, both in terms of the academic publishing trade and of Wikipedia's policies and procedures; still, I'm not sure I can get on board with a solution which seems to me to boil down to 'it's a bad remedy, so we should ignore it in edge cases'. I'll think on it a bit more before doing anything, but at the moment I'm still leaning towards taking it to arbcom with a set of questions along the lines of:
 * Was this remedy ever within Arbcom's scope (if not, please vacate it)
 * Is this remedy still needed to stop disruption (if not, please vacate it)
 * If the answer to both of the previous questions is 'yes', please indicate how 'academically focussed' should be interpreted, to the best of your ability.
 * That loooong discussion has seen people argue that 'academically focused' means anything written about an academic subject, which means that almost nothing could be ruled out; they've argued that it means anything written using academic methodologies, which is a reasonable position to take; however, I interpret it really as meaning an academic book, especially since periodicals are restricted to 'peer reviewed scholarly journals' - why would the remedy be intended to restrict periodicals in such as way as to rule out heavyweight newspapers and general-interest history magazines, but to allow popular history books?
 * Thanks for your insight on this anyway, it's valuable, and I will consider this further before doing anything rash. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , In case you were not aware, this remedy was already subject to two clarification requests, one by me (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland). (I know DGG is aware of those as he commented there before).


 * The first one resulted in one useful and necessary clarification (That really should have been added to the main page and not hidden in the clarification on talk) was "When a broad article has sections that relate to these topics, the restriction applies to only the relevant sections. Other sections outside of the topic area would not be subject to the expanded article sourcing expectations". Despite the existence of this clarification, I have seen cases where someone has argued that, let's say, a biography of someone involved in Poland in WW/Holocaust topic area is fully subject to the remedy, meaning that they challenged sources used in sections about their pre-war life and/or about post-war legacy (for example, a removed source included newspapers used to reference claims that the person has received awards half a century after the war, or that a commemorative monument was built in their honor).


 * The second request by me concerned several issues (and while it is lengthy and so are the comments by others, I strongly recommend you to read it), particularly as, sadly, responses by arbitrators were very few, and totally ignored my requests for clarification if certain types of sources are ok or not, and focused only on the 'chilling aspect', with 2:1 statement that violators should not be reported to AE immediately if they add a low-quality source, and should first be engaged in a discussion on talk. I am still troubled that the dissenting arbitrator thought one can be reported to AE as soon as they add a weaker source, and I am further concerned that even that clarification is just a fig leaf dressing - I see a source I don't like, I challenge it mentioning the remedy, the other editor disagrees, explains their point and restores the source, I say I still disagree and report them to AE for violating the remedy - the discussion was held, let's see if I can get my opponent blocked by rolling the admin lottery dice. I proposed replacing this remedy with a 1RR or 0RR restriction on "editors who have been warned and who engage in edit warring restoring bad sources", with a "bad source" defined as one that has been declared as such following a consensus at RSN or RfC, but that proposal was ignored. I'll end by pointing out that several uninvolved editors who commented in this clarification request agreed with me that it likely creates a chilling effect (Nigel Ish, Nug). And it was criticized as too narrow by many others (Peacemaker67, Nick-D). Anyway, I still remain disappointed that that request of clarification I submitted resulted in pretty much no clarification, and I hope you'll have better luck (which is also while I'd rather see this entire remedy vacated, rather than giving the arbitrators to make the rules even vaguer and more complex than they already are). Current rules (RS, REDFLAG, FRINGE, UNDUE, etc.) have been and are still good enough, and as far as the sources available this topic area it is no worse than American politics, Palestine, Balkans or whatever. Just imagine the headache for RSN if the current 'academically focused' wording spreads into these more active areas... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There are two separate topics here: one is the role of arb com with respect to issues involving content. The other is how to determine what sources to use, with respect to either our general preference for academic content, or a community or other mandate to use only or preferentially academic content in a particular situation.
 * I. The exact wording is:
 * The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated.
 * 1A. Neither part of this is actually followed by the committee. The committee does make policy, generally policy on which it thinks the community has tacit agreement. Some are decisions on the policy for enforcement of its decisions, and it is possible to see it as a logical extension of its role. An example is the policy allowing Discretionary sanctions, which it introduced to meet a particular need at the time, (and, in my opinion has been greatly misuaed ever since and is no longer needed) . Another was the policy change introducing extended confirmed status, which it introduced in a limited way to meet a particular need (and was subsequently greatly extended by the community, and unlike DS, I consider extremely helpful)    Examples of making more general policy, are manifold, and I think unavoidable: In reality, there is no essential difference between making policy and interpreting policy. Our general policies, such as NOT, are interpreted by more specific policies and guidelines, and these in turn are interpreted by the community consensus in specific cases- For example,  The decision on Pseudoscience, where it said that a scientific POV was to be preferred, the recent case on medicine, the decision we're talking about concerning the holocaust,  the various decisions on BLP, the decision on infoboxes.  Sometimes there is policy made internally by the committee without a specific public case, such as its decision to not review community blocks, or its decision that assisting the enforcement of the  policy on undeclared paid editing was a logical part of its role with respect to private evidence.


 * IB. With respect to content: Content can be affected directly or indirectly. Many of the more important arb com cases in recent years have arisen out of contnet disputes, and any decision on them will necessarily affect content. There are many ways. some difficult to avoid. The most unavoidable is the decision to block or ban or topic ban particular editors, when they preferential represent one side of a contents dispute. In some topics there are so many interested people that such decisions won't really affect content, but in some cases, such as Medicine, they do. I think that the committee does consider this aspect, and certainly others comment on it during discussion. Generally the committee members do not say this is the basis for such decisions, but anyone looking at cases will realize that sometimes it probably was motivated in part by a desired result involving content. Again, Medicine is a good example, or the numerous pseudoscience cases where the people limited were those promoting the eccentric view. The very most dramatic was the early decision on Scientology.


 * A second way is interpreting policy in such a way that it does affect content. An example is this very case. WP policies almost always involve terms of art, word used in special ways in Wikipedia, and whose exact meang is unclear. The example (tho not involving the committees) I usually give is the GNG. where every adjective in the guideline can be interpreted in opposite  ways in any given case.  But everywhere there are such words :  disruptive editing, conduct unbecoming an administrator, private information, the NFCC policy,  the BLP policy, the exceptions for removing vandalism, NPA--there are a few with actual fixed numbers or unambiguous words, but even those, such as the % needed to pass a RfA, or 3RR, can be interpreted in a variable fashion.

in process--please let me finish before commenting

Hi DGG - I don't know whether you were intending to come back and finish these observations, but I've been thinking about this over the last few days, and ultimately I think that arbcom either needs to clarify what they mean by this restriction, or ditch it. I've gone ahead and requested clarification at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment; all I can do is hope that it doesn't have the effect that you predicted. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  16:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * yes, I was intending, but I wanted to get it perfect....  So it was perfectly reasonable to go ahead. We shall now see what this year's committee is like.  DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I continued my remarks in brief at the Clarification Request, .    DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sharecare article updates
Hi DGG – Hope this finds you well! In early Feb, you were kind enough to weigh in on discussions on the Sharecare article, and you mentioned you’d be taking a look at the proposed infobox edits as guided by input from you and two other editors in the next week or so. I’m checking back in as the latest proposed revision to the infobox remains unposted on the Sharecare talk page. It takes into account all editor feedback received thus far, and if you are in agreement with it, would you be willing to help make the edit? As mentioned previously, since I’m a COI editor, I’m avoiding making the change directly to stay within Wikipedia’s rules. Thanks again for all the guidance and support here. I welcome any and all of your feedback! SCbhaynes (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I may have explained my role incorrectly: I do not routinely work at Requested Changes. Since I don't think paid editors should be here at all, I don't see why I should as a volunteer assist them.  I am a volunteer, only here to help the encyclopedia, and I specialize in removing spam and promotionalism.   Once I've done that, I don't intend to involve myself further. There are many thousands of other promotional  articles I need to work on.  I may have given the opposite impression, in appreciation of your cooperative approach to removing promotionalism, but I cannot follow it up--there's too much else to do. I do realize that if everyone took my approach, there would be nobody to work on Requested Changes for coi editors, and that part of the system would fail. I would regard that as a step forwards.   (Be assured this is not in the least personal) DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course. I totally understand and am in agreement that everyone's charge here as editors is to make Wikipedia a better and objective source -- however they care to volunteer their efforts. I wholeheartedly agree that's the only common denominator that matters here and am operating with the expectation that nothing else should compromise that (no matter what kind of editor is at work). Yes, I did misunderstand the message that you would revisit the page for additional edits, but am understood now that it's complete from your perspective. Thanks again for the meaningful input and contributions! Again, I'm sincerely grateful for all feedback. SCbhaynes (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Journal of Computer Graphics Techniques
Hi David, you dePRODded this with edit summary "consider merge; ck indexing". I checked the indexing before PRODding and could not find anything (see also here). As for merging, I don't see a plausible merge target. The journal is self-published by the editorial board, so there's no publisher where this could be merged. Merging to the predecessor journal does not seem appropriate either, as this journal was not a direct successor of the predecessor (only part of the board left the previous journal, which continued publishing for a while). And the predecessor journal is of doubtful notability, too. What should we do with this article? --Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd merge under the continuing title for convenience, since appaently almsot everybody left. If you don't agree afd them both.  DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

A new way to organize user talk pages
David, I tried my tp idea at the top of my user page. My talk page has very little content, but did begin to find an interesting exchange in my archive 4. Setting up a list of links will be tedious unless templates or macros can be used. Your talk page links will be a much more rigorous test. — Neonorange (Phil) 00:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I intend to only do it to the most recent months or two. I can manually move it every month. But I shall have to set up a test page for it--this one is to big to play around with.
 * And I first want to figure out what's with the "reply" function that's showing up -- I don';t think it was announced for enWP, and in any case, it doesn't seem to work at all.

 DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems "reply" does not work on one's own talk page, but it did on a Draft talk page I tried it. Or at least I think it did  DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It does save a little time & avoids some common errors. . Now, if it could be gotten to appear only where it actually works....  DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

== Sat Mar 13: Asia Art Archive in America: Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 00:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Jérôme Chenal
Dear user:DGG,

Thanks for your comment on Draft:Jérôme Chenal. You mentioned to look for reviews of his books, which in my opinion would make sense for an author, but Jérôme CHenal is an architect and urbanist, and his notability stems from his expertise in the topic of African cities. He was the subject of several interviews in major french-speaking newspapers and has appearead countless times as a quality of expert on these matters on various media outlets. I honestly don't understand how his notability can be questioned?

Thanks for your time! Take care, BatYote. (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , To show notability as an architect, we need sources written about him or his works, or major awards of at least national stature. He has also published an umber of books, and it is relatively easy to shown notability for them if there are    substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources. In the  English WP there's this peculiar rule, that only substantial  3rd party  independent reliable published sources show notability. We don't go by common sense. I didn't make the rule, I don't like the rule, but that how articles are judged here.  DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , Does that imply that the four referenced interviews about the subject, including one in newspaper Le Monde, are irrelevant? I'm seriously at loss here. BatYote. (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , so sorry to get back to you about this; but I added even more secondary sources. Please also note that one link (avisdexperts.ch) compiles interventions of the subject in Swiss media and could serve as multiple references; I chose this one to avoid unnecessary excessive referencing. I hope this is sufficient! Thanks a LOT in advance! BatYote. (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I will get there, but not immediately. I'm working on quite a number of drafts, as you can se from this page  DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Noted, thanks a bunch! BatYote. (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi protect me!
Yes please- semi protect my talk page if you would be so kind. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done, and if you need longer, just ask.  DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Álvaro Coutinho Aguirre
Dear DGG, I apreciate very much your message. This article will be very useful for everyone who studies nature, and believe that preservation and clean sources of energy are the only way for us to survive, and for the nest generations. Thank you all from wikipedia who had been so kind. Yours sincerelly, Alexandra Aguirre Alexandra Aguirr (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I accepted it, although considerable work is still needed. As it is easier for me to do it than explain how you should do it, I'm in the process of condensing and rewriting it, and adjusting some of the wording into their more idiomatic English equivalents. I'm doing this, as a volunteeer, because I agree with you about the importance of the article.   DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

AcademiaNet resubmission
Dear DGG, thank you for your comment / action on the AcademiaNet entry. I am trying to get the entry fit for resubmission but am a bit at a loss what I need to do. I wrote the following question to SL93 but got no answer yet, maybe you can point me in the right direction? Thanks!

"Dear SL93 I am trying to save Draft:AcademiaNet from deletion and want to resubmit it. I read your comment about it (Sounds more like an advertising) but am, to be honest, at a total loss how I could improve the article to meet that criticism. I can't find any embellishment in the wording (maybe the Angela Merkel quote? But I don't think it violates guidelines and is relevant to state the purpose of the project?) and I think as an official project of the Swiss National Science Foundation and the sanctioned collaboration of over 40 other governemental institutions across europe it also clears notability criteria. Could you give me some pointers how to improve the article (I'm mainly active in the german wikipedia so am not that familiar with the ENG-standards), I would be sad to see such an important academic project which solely focus on women to not be represented. Thank you for your help. Fairfis (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC) -> Fairfis (de Wikipedia)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.3.63.86 (talk)


 * , I agree completely about the importance of the organization, which is why I added my note on it. The problem is that almost all of the references are from either the organization or its sponsor. I think it's probably notable and that we should have an article on it. But it should have at least one more substantial 3rd party reliable published source, and for articles on organizations we do not count interviews with the head of the organization. That really leaves only the two paragraphs in Nature News. Personally, I think our rule, which in its strict application is intended for commercial organizations in order to discourage them from using wikipedia for publicity,   can lead to absurd results when used for organizations like this, but nonetheless, that's the standard the English WP uses.  Please  try to find at least one more reference, and let me know, and I will do what I can to help the article.   I could accept it as it is, but if I did, a community discussion might well delete it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Pietrus
Not a big issue, but on several occasions, you refer to me as 'Pietrus'. While it reminds me of the Latin Petra, and in fact as I explain on my userpage, Piotrus is my form of latinization (check out the poem that inspired my username :>), I do wonder if you have any particular reason to mislabel my user name as a form of endearment, or is it an accident? :) PS. One more minor correction for the reference: by training and employment, I am a sociologist, not a historian. I did co-author one article that can be seen as half-historical research although I was not the primary author, and I do have one more paper, solo-authored, in review right now that deals with history, so there's that. I do appreciate you calling me a historian, though, it feels nice... but I don't think I deserve the adjective until my new article is published... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry. I'll fix it. I must have been getting it wrong for years. And I adjusted the wording otherwise.  DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no biggie - but given the pings, there may be a certain confused Spanish Wikipedian (User:Pietrus) :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement at ArbCom C&A
That was a very well written and eloquent statement. Thank you.

One big difference that you kind of allude to is between disciplines where scholarly research progresses cumulativaley, with new research building on, extending and improving but rately rejecting wholesale or completely overtuning, existing previous work - most natural sciences are like that - and disciplines where the change comes from "revolutions" or revisionistic approaches which seek to throw away whatever the dominant views and methods are and replace them with something completely new (only to be themselves replaced later, and then resurface again with a "neo" applied to their name). The latter characterizes a good deal of Humanities and some Social Science (economics and chunks of political science are probably more like natural sciences in this respect). This seems to be the "live not by consensus, but by controvers" that you mention, and yes, it makes it very difficult for an encyclopedia to present topics from such a discipline in a proper, neutral, manner, especially in a controversial topic.  Volunteer Marek  06:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I did intend that difference. As you indicate, it's not a sharp distinction. Fields change, as do subfields. Psychol is close to a science. Econ I would agree is now a science, except for the political influence. '
 * It would be less difficult for an encyclopedia to present controversy if we did not to summarize the status of the field in a brief paragraph. Many of the disputes I've been seeing are over a few words in an initial sentence.  There can be no way to write such a summary without evading the issue, or an inevitably biased interpretation or selection. Even when we try to say briefly that "opinion is divided" what do we mean by "a few" / "some" /"many" /  "most" /  "almost all" (what I have in mind here is American politics)   DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

March 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC with Wikimedia Community Ireland for St Patrick's Day
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ronny Hadani Draft
I am waiting for your reply on my talk page User_talk:Cbbranin. Did you see this? Thank you. Cbbranin (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am working on as many articles as I can deal with, and will get to yours if nobody else checks it first. I'm a volunteer, like all administrators here, and can choose what I wish to work on -- and I have no obligation to assist as a  volunteer work for which you or anyone else is being paid.

The previous reviewer is an editor known, just as I am, for insisting on the strict requirements of WP:COI and WP:PAID. Indeed, if I encountered a reviewer who did otherwise, I would ensure they were removed from the role. They have given you exceptionally full advice; many reviewers give paid editors just the standard form notices, because so little of what they write ever becomes satisfactory.  DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

user:DGG : I appreciate your time and comments. I've done my best to comply with all Wiki terms, and understand the reason for the strict requirements. I have followed any advice i have been given by the reviewers to the best of my ability. If you have any other suggestions, I'm happy to edit further. Again, I greatly appreciate your feedback and time. Cbbranin (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The University of Texas Marine Science Institute
Thank you for your comment on this page. At the risk of sinking yet more time into what seems like a doomed project, I wonder if I could ask your advice. Bluntly, do I have a chance at acceptance here? I am flustered that I have so many independent and neutral references yet reviewers keep asking for more. Jst4 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As you will see, I accepted it. I suggest 2 things: first, that you add a chronological list of all the directors. Even if we do not now have articles on them, they might be notable .Second, since by our (sometimes ridiculous) standards,  the demonstration of the notability of the lab relies in large part upon the journal Gulf of Mexico Science, you might want to write an article on it--or rather, on its successor journal, including information on all earlier or incorporated titles.  This is particularly important, because otherwise someone might think it was the Texas lab's own journal).  DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

OS block
Hi DGG, I'm not one to usually discuss blocks but having been the recipient of an accidentally indef (an admin meant to block another editor) I feel compelled to ask if this is who you meant to block? I noticed that the log of a recently tagged page by this user isn't OS'd despite the content itself being OS'd so it seems weird to me given what was on the page that Viewmont was blocked as opposed to the creator and particularly so since Viewmont has a clean history and block log. I obviously understand if you can't discuss it or elaborate but figured it was worth reaching out. VAXIDICAE💉 13:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * will check later today. Thanks for questioning  DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI this looked like an error to me and I have unblocked. I think you will agree when you check their suppressed contribs, and I suspect you meant to maybe block someone else. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I still have not had a chance to check, and I trust you both completely on things like this. After I check, I shall apologize.  DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, would you please apologize to Viewmont Viking at your earliest convenience? He has taken the block very well, but he shouldn't have had to. An apology would be appreciated, I'm sure. SarahSV (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DGG Would you please prioritize reviewing your administrative action over the other contributions you are making, I don't think it should take very long especially if it was an error. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 00:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * as I find checking back over a chain of my errors a little complicated, I typically do routine things first. You can keep asking me to apologize, but I think I should first figure out what I did wrong.Another way of wording this is that I'm still too upset over having made an error like this even to think about it. I'll get over it, and apologize. I always do.   DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It made no sense to me either, so I traced back what I was doing until I think I figured it out. I had just deleted a promotional page of a non-notable minor, who had placed the information also onto his user page. In such a situation, when personal identification is involved (as it was, including  in this case the identification of other young people) and the person is young enough, I oversight the information as is provided for by policy  In this particular case, the person is not so young that oversight would be appropriate & there is no real indication the other people are either. . The person who had noticed the page as being the problem was the user in question.As I had that user's contribution page open also to see what was happening,  I seem to have oversighted and blocked them instead. It took a while to figure out because I had figured that I blocked the wrong person, whereas in actuality I had intended to block nobody. I've apologized on their user talk page.  I also apologize for giving everyone else the trouble and being so long to figure it out.  DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And I apologize to everyone who had to get themselves involved here because of my error --, , , .  DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

mail ...
Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

ygm
Please see mail on distribution list. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 19:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello DGG, I see you are no longer off line via your contributions. Would you please review and reply to the distribution list regarding your recent action.  Thank you, —  xaosflux  Talk 17:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was on a computer without access to the list, but I have now replied, but need to check further.  DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * see above, and see the list for a few more details.  My apologies to you and everyone.  DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:GameStop&#32; on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment, and &#32;at Template talk:Undisclosed paid&#32; on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting review of new article Jewish Influence in Rhythm and Blues
Hi DGG, hope you are doing well; I know you are very busy, as usual;-) Could you take a look and review this article if you get a chance? Best regards, Carlstak (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems it's been reviewed. Thanks anyway. Carlstak (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't really my subject in any case, thought the Jewish influence of film definitely is. And in that respect there's a general comment I have: your article starts in the 1940s, and there's a very long history before that. There was first of all the Jewish influence in mainstream US popular music in the first half of the 20th century, which i know about but I am unable to analyze. And simultaneous to that is the Jewish influence on the development of film during the same period, which was in the US though not in Europe very pervasive, and this is something I do know about and intend to write about here. . And there's a common root to both: the Jewish influence on vaudeville in late 19th century America (about which I know a little); now, this is turn was a development of two separate strands: British vaudeville, which was not entirely a Jewish (Cockney) preserve but was greatly influenced by it and about which I do not know much. and the Jewish comedians and traveling musicians   in continental Europe--especially Russian Poland during the 19th century, which had a significant effect both on the development of the Russian and Polish film -- a topic about which I am at this moment reading for the first time-- and their influence by emigration to the united states, where they influenced very greatly film, and popular theater,  and musical theater.  The impression  I have is that there was less separation between the popular performance arts in the late 19th and early 20th century than there was in the later 20th century.
 * I will read your article in aome detail tomorrow. I have many gaps in knowledge that I need to fill in.  DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, DGG. Yes, I'm aware of some of that history before the 1940s, especially the Tin Pan Alley era, as you mentioned. There's a lot to cover; I'll be watching to see what you write about the Jewish influence on the development of film. I'm delighted you'll be taking a look at my article—I'm still researching the subject and have a fair amount of material to work with already, but it needs to be organized and the different strands of it reconciled. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:MasterChef Australia (series 13)&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting review of new article Jewish Influence in Rhythm and Blues
Hi DGG, hope you are doing well; I know you are very busy, as usual;-) Could you take a look and review this article if you get a chance? Best regards, Carlstak (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems it's been reviewed. Thanks anyway. Carlstak (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't really my subject in any case, thought the Jewish influence of film definitely is. And in that respect there's a general comment I have: your article starts in the 1940s, and there's a very long history before that. There was first of all the Jewish influence in mainstream US popular music in the first half of the 20th century, which i know about but I am unable to analyze. And simultaneous to that is the Jewish influence on the development of film during the same period, which was in the US though not in Europe very pervasive, and this is something I do know about and intend to write about here. . And there's a common root to both: the Jewish influence on vaudeville in late 19th century America (about which I know a little); now, this is turn was a development of two separate strands: British vaudeville, which was not entirely a Jewish (Cockney) preserve but was greatly influenced by it and about which I do not know much. and the Jewish comedians and traveling musicians   in continental Europe--especially Russian Poland during the 19th century, which had a significant effect both on the development of the Russian and Polish film -- a topic about which I am at this moment reading for the first time-- and their influence by emigration to the united states, where they influenced very greatly film, and popular theater,  and musical theater.  The impression  I have is that there was less separation between the popular performance arts in the late 19th and early 20th century than there was in the later 20th century.
 * I will read your article in aome detail tomorrow. I have many gaps in knowledge that I need to fill in.  DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, DGG. Yes, I'm aware of some of that history before the 1940s, especially the Tin Pan Alley era, as you mentioned. There's a lot to cover; I'll be watching to see what you write about the Jewish influence on the development of film. I'm delighted you'll be taking a look at my article—I'm still researching the subject and have a fair amount of material to work with already, but it needs to be organized and the different strands of it reconciled. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Crusading&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft
Hi. Can you give Draft:Blind Man's Bluff (Fragonard, 1775-1780) another look, it is one of DA's pages and was moved to draft space by a sock. I've added the museum source, so may be fine for main spacing. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * done DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 42, January – February 2021 
 * New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
 * 1Lib1Ref
 * Library Card

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nothing (Technology Company)
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nothing (Technology Company), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's enough credibility assertion in this for A7 I think. It was founded by someone notable enough for a WP page, and there's a BI article that's about the company. That's enough for A7, maybe not for GNG. Take to AfD if required. . Thank you. Ged UK  15:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * since redirected to Carl Pei by another editor.  DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 17:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Endeavor Business Media
This organisation has something about it that smells fishy. If it is as big as it is meant to be, the Google Streetview picture of its headquarters shows a smallish residential building. I've been strugglkng to work out what is going on. If it's big why can no-one find senible sourcing? Fiddle  Faddle  17:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a similar feeling. But I want to figure out more, and therefore I don't think it should be done as a speedy.  DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to pop over to my talk page and have a look at this conversation. I think I have now walked away from that particular conversation  Fiddle   Faddle  20:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your phrasing of the message illustrates to me that I was standing too close to the discussion and was right to ask for other eyes.  Fiddle   Faddle  06:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * not too close, just frustrated at repeatedly not being understood. If I have any technique for dealing with situations like that, it's to admit right off how inconsistent  or frequently wrong WP is, and go on from there (what I said was:
 * " ... My concerns, ..., are that declarations of coi are accurately made, that attempts at advertising are removed, and that reliable sources be found to establish the suitability for an article under our rules if it is possible.   The first step here seems to be to find adequate sources to  establish the facts of the enterprise.
 * Abigail Christine, I must inform you that Wikipedia attempts to have  consistent standards, but has not yet fully accomplished this goal. Since we are a loose assemblage of individuals not operating under any central direction, and decide disputed issues separately for each instance by. a rough consensus, it is inevitable that there will be considerable variation--subjects that really ought not have articles by some interpretations of our rules will sometimes have them, and firms that might sem able to justify them may not in practice be able to. In particular, the standards for referencing and for articles have improved over time: W{P:NCORP in its present state is a relatively new development, earlier approaches to removing promotionalism   were erratic, and observance of the terms of use very inconsistent. We are attempting to remedy this and bring articles to a higher standard, but there are probably hundreds of thousands of articles that do not meet current standards. Some will be upgradeable, and kept, some will not, and be deleted.
 * More specifically, it is by our rules perfectly possible that some parts of a firm may be separately notable, and the overall body not---this can especially be true when oneor two subsidiaries are much better known to the public. My own personal preference is to  deal with such situations by combining small articles under the main heading, but this is  not necessarily the consensus result. Administrators here do not make decisions based on their own preferences, but only in accord with what they believe from experience and knowledge of the rules will be the express or implied consensus of the general community.
 * I'll take a further look in a day or two."  DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Good technique. I shall add it to my armoury. The author is very frustrated at present. They exhibit the fairly usual righteous indignation of the paid editor whose payment is unlikely to be forthcoming unless they do the work correctly. All they need is better referencing, which is only hard if it does not exist. Paid editors tend to be between the rock of the $ and the hard place of our standards. Fiddle   Faddle  07:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * another technique for coi which I see you use also--and I think that I learned from you--, is to respond in detail, with clear indications that you have actually read the article., rather than using just the templates. I don't see how with the volume of junk we have to deal with, how we can avoid the templates, but they're almost never really enough., nio matter how carefully we word them. I know that when I get a form reply from anyone in RL , I immediately throw it in the trash, usually without reading it.   I've seen increasingly many attempts at "personalized" forrms--they go in the trash almost as quickly. Only genuine personal involvement works. Even coi editors aren't idiots.   DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a personal set of extra boilerplates at User:Timtrent/Reviewing which you are welcome to use or plagiarise. I modify them as the need arises. I have a feeling some of the now standard decline notices borrowed text from them some years ago when our declne notices were rudimentary at best. It could have been the other way around, too. I do read it. I work a little with paid editors who listen. Those who refuse to listen find I refuse to play.  Fiddle   Faddle  11:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I never quite know whether you accept pings or find them distasteful. In case you do not accept them, the creating editor has esponded to you on my talk page. I have tried very hard to make a quiet, useful response. With hindsight it is probabkly tl;dr. Fiddle   Faddle  15:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I not only accept pings, I rely on them to set my priorities.  DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021)&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 10:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

An article that you nominated for deletion has been recreated
Back in 2017, you nominated Toufik Boushaki for deletion. It was recreated today and used at least one predatory journal as a source and appears still not to be notable despite what looks like a ton of refbombing. I was just wondering how similar this article was to the previous one, if you can remember. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * much more extensive, but the material added makes it even more promotional, I think the best course would be to renominate for AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please would you take a look at Electronic Design (magazine)
I'm standing too close to this to make an unbiased judgement. This Commons diff is a declaration of paid editing by the editor who created the article very recently. I am unsure of two matters: I can normally make an assessment of the second point, but have been standing too close to drafts on Endeavor Business Media and the paid editor there to remain impartial, so I am asking for your help. Fiddle  Faddle  14:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Should this have gone via AFC in view of the paid status?
 * 2) Is it neutral and well referenced, thus should it remain?
 * I sent it to AfC as Draft:Electronic Design (magazine) All articles written by paid editing should go to AfC, even if they appears neutral. It is not an absolutely firm rule, but always a good idea, especially when the article might be seen as intended to support another promotional article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll follow your lead on bumping new paid articles to AFC. I'll recuse myself from reviewing this one. Fiddle   Faddle  07:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography information
Hello, I want to inquire about bibliography information for my newly made article Alexander Hunter (novelist). What info would be wanted for this list. Any help is appreciated by you or any other users you think could help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * replied on user talk.  DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC WP:Notability people
I made an RFC here can you add some comments? --Cs california (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on 18:15:02, 30 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Vanles
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I wanted to note that the use of term 'Distinguished Professor' is not subjectively promotional language, but this is a specific professor ranking. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_States#Distinguished_(research/teaching)_professor

Vanles (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * actually, the meaning varies--in this case, it's a title, and I adjusted the wording to make it clear; in some cases both it and named professorships can be  temporary one-year designations. See the note on your page for. a problem with copyright. I went to some trouble to make sure this is ok, because he is after all, distinguished in multiple senses.  The reference format still needs osme adjustment.  DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC).