User talk:DGG/Archive 181 Feb. 2022

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg 28bytes

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg 28bytes

{{ Guideline and policy news
 * The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news
 * The user group  will be renamed   in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
 * The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration
 * Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
 * The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
 * A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.



{{Center|{{Flatlist| }}}}
 * Discuss this newsletter

Saturday Feb 5: ONLINE Met Afrofuturist edit-a-thon (and monthlong campaign)
(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 05:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

UArchitects
Hello dear DGG, i would like to edit the UArchitects draft page and i figured out that there is an archive already.would you please help me in this?since i saw a notice that i need to contact you befrehand. thank you in advance.

Amir.mansour1370 (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I do not see the point of duplicating coverage on a person and his professional firm, when he's the key principal of the firm.  There is already a redirect. .  DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC: Strategic Planning Survey for our community
(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 18:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Debdeep Mukhopadhyay
Would you mind determining if this professor passes muster, please. There is a bit if move history here, so redraftification may be considered to be move warring. My instinct suggest ROTM professor Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)\
 * , I think notable enough, if only for the textbook. I did some editing. I noticed a certain formulaic style which may need reviewing some recent bios.    DGG ( talk ) 10:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

to it first.  DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC) ``  DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-submitted article on Hassan Khalil
The article is ˜. I added much more information like you suggested. A similar article that should be expanded is John Paul Verboncoeur. Finally, I recently removed my email address from my account. Not being bombarded with notifications has proven to be great :D. Yleventa2 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Accepted.

(btw, You don't have to remvoe your email-- just say in Preferences, on the notifications panel, what you want to be emailed about and what you don't. ) DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Mark Prausnitz notable? Yes, but...
I wonder if you would spend a short while looking at this. He is notable, I have no doubt over that, but I find the article to be over-referenced and it makes me wonder about whether it is here as a record or here as an advert. You usually get right to the core of matters academic. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * unquestionably notable by our rules, as holder of named chair, but also in the ordinary sense--he was in fact apparently the inventor of microneedle drug delivery, and he has 6 papers with over one thousand references each. The article is obviously PR-ridden, and should not have been accepted without asking about coi. He comes under my rubric as notable enough to be worth rewriting", which I have started.  DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and efforts on my first created page about Mark Prausnitz. I am not related to him but I can understand your concern. When the page was first published I got a notice in the page that it is not cited enough to support what has been written. That is why I continued adding citations and editing them to make the page look more professional. I noticed there wasn't an article about him and wanted to make my contribution to this community. Since I haven't written a Wikipedia page before I look at the similar pages to get an idea about what should be included and do my research to add the facts.--Pincorno (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Expiring Drafts for August 2021
Hello, David,

Just a reminder that because of quirks of our calendar, next week, we'll lose drafts expiring August 29, August 30 and August 31 in one day as we move from February 28th (August 28) to March 1st (September 1) so you might have to redouble your draft-checking efforts over the next couple of days. The good part is that because of last July's AFC backlog drive, the lists of expiring drafts for days in August have often been shorter than typical ~200-250 drafts/day.

I hope the Arctic chill has passed through the metro area and you all are getting ready for the return of Spring! Liz Read! Talk! 18:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I will probably not be able to keep up--I expect to limit the ones I look at to assess for rescue to 20-21 c. academic bios & academic organizations with refs in languages I can read, widening it slightly for earlier centuries. I will no longer look at any articles on locations, books or authors or artists or musicians, or 19-21 c. commercial or political people & organizations. I'll copy & expand on this this to the afc page.  I already don't look at sports or popular entertainment.


 * We've had storms with 10 inches of snow in April.
 * And it sounds like you are due for even more snow tomorrow! You have certainly had your share of snow storms this winter. For weeks, I've either heard about one that was coming your way or one that was currently hitting you. And then, curious periods of warm sunshine. Strange weather in these times. Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Feb 23: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(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 19:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Harold Gunness
If Harold Gunness is deleted then the original article - Harold Gunnes (see also its editing history, not the redirect page) - should be deleted as well. I guess L'Origine du monde should have Move'ed the content rather than copying it into a new article?... Shearonink (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused here by the editor's edit summary of (#REDIRECT Harold Gunness - corrected spelling and copied content to correctly spelt article). Perhaps inadvertent but is this a clear enough attribution? Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted
The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Disappearance of Scott Kleeschulte
Hi, your PROD on Disappearance of Scott Kleeschulte has been removed by the original author. You may want to move to AfD. Regards, WWGB (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * see Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Scott Kleeschulte.  DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC) �

A question
Hello DGG, do you think Ruth Plato-Shinar deserve an entry ? here in Google Scholar and this is the entry creator (Noam Furer - VP New Media and Innovation - Ben Horin & Alexandrovitz) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1FE:7791:0:0:3799:E966 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Intercontinental ballistic missile
Hi, this edit didn't appear constructive, so I reverted it. I assume this was an erroneous edit of some sort. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did indeed make a typo, but "smallest" is not actually meaningful, since there will always be a practical limit, and I changed it again to "small". I'm not going to pursue this� further, of course. It's good to make a wording more accurate, but not good to get into a conflict about it.  DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries. I was simply reverting to the last good version, as I couldn't figure out what you had meant to say. I'm fine with it now. BilCat (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Completely wrong
Your comment "The relevant standard is not whether there are third party sources to meet GNG. The relevant standard is WP:PROF" here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ALola_Fatoyinbo_Agueh&type=revision&diff=1047717115&oldid=1015818007 - is wrong. GNG is always a relevant standard, whether or not NPROF is met. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * GNG is indeed a relevant standard. Professors are notable if they meet  GNG. They will also be notable if they do not meet GNG, but meet WP:PROF. WP:PROF is not a subguideline, but an independent guideline. This has been demonstrated in thousands of afds in the last 12 years, with only a very small number of aberrant decisions. Therefore it is an error to say, the professor is not notable because there is no evidence of meeting GNG. There doesn't have to be.   In practice, for professor who are notable by their research, it is very much easier to show WP:PROF, so that's what we normally do. Occasionally,  one is is extensively involved in non-academic public affairs can be notable under GNG no matter how trivial their academic work. One common case of this is those who go in for politics. In terms of advice to a contributor who is writing an article about faculty, they will almost always do much better  to show   WP:PROF., which is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject as demonstrated by citations to their work or reviews of their books. Looking for substantial independent references  about the person, as would be needed for GNG, is not likely to be helpful and is therefore inappropriate advice in most cases.
 * If one is a believer that GNG applies in all cases, despite the explicit words of the guideline itself that it only generally, not always is relevant, this can be argued the way I and others argued it when we were getting the guideline established in 2006-7 when I joined: In case of non-scientist where academic notablity is shown by books, the substantial 3rd party reliable published sources are the  substantial reviews of their books in third-party published independent reliable sources; for scientists, they're the 3rd party independent citations of their work in reliable sources. (It was objected at the time that not all citations will be substantial, and indeed in most fields only perhaps 1/10 of them will be, but that essentially means that any researcher who has published papers that in toto have been cited 20 times would probably meet the standard, which would mean that all assistant professors in science were notable--and that is far more permissive than the community (or even the science people) would accept; it would also be an involved argument accessible only to specialists to dissect the citing articles.
 * The real situation in all fields is that people interpret guidelines for notability is to interpret them so as to have a suitable number of the subjects in the area notable. The true decision is how many athletes or scholars does one think we should have, either absolutely, or relative to each other. The present situation is a continually adjusted compromise, which, like all WP processes, is inconsistent, unreliable, time consuming,  impenetrable to newcomers, and subject to bias.


 * Like most people who try to screen many drafts or articles, I use a standardized form of notice in most cases which does not always fully explain the specific situation. And in this particular instance, I have not fully analyzed the draft yet. Whether or not notable, the draft in a promotional  style and shows evidence of coi. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't misuse warning templates
Your recent warning of here was a misuse of a warning template. The minor problem is that those templates are intended mainly for new users, and come off as condescending if used against an experienced editor. The major problem is that you were quite wrong about Generalrelative adding (or restoring) defamatory content to Michael Woodley. Well-sourced negative content added in a neutral tone is not defamatory. Please see this discussion at the BLP noticeboard. I'd remove the warning if I were you. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Thank you . DGG, if you will agree to remove the warning template, please feel free to remove my reply as well. I will then happily close the case I've opened at BLPN. Generalrelative (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've added text to replace some you deleted, I've posted to BLPN so that others can see what I added. Doug Weller  talk 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just making sure it's clear, Generalrelative: Doug's post at BLPN means it's not for you to close the discussion. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Understood, thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)