User talk:DGG/Archive 86 Mar. 2014

Promotional editing
Hi David, perhaps you can have a look at Special:Contributions/Amsterdad. This user has created several articles with huge amounts of references, but as noted in this AFD, the references often have nothing or hardly anything to do with the subject. The articles look polished and professional. In other words, and perhaps I'm being too suspicious, this looks like the articles produced by that company a while ago (WikiEd, I think the name was). --Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * His method is quite specific, but I do not immediately recall the name of the earlier editor to compare it., can you help us here.? It would help to figure it out, so he can be banned as a sockpuppet.  Obvious paid editing of course.  The difficulty is that there is often just enough notability that a decent article could be written. This can put us in  the absurd position of having a dozen people spend time on the AfD & someone spend a hour or so rewriting, so he can collect his money.  One possible thing to do is to simply stubbify the articles to whatever is sourced and does indicate notability ; the client won't be as happy--and if the inappropriate material is added back, there's a case for deletion as incurably promotional and not fixable by normal editing.  Another thing to do is to get it accepted that somewhat promotional articles by paid editors or apparent paid editors with weak notability and weak sourcing will be deleted. The difficulty here is that there will be a good number of false positives.
 * Do you think we could go to AN/I and ask for a block as an entirely promotional editor even if the articles stay in.? Or can we start asking for blocks as undeclared paid editor?  DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting a discussion somewhere on how to handle cases like this seems like a good idea. The problem will indeed be false positives. For the moment, I have !voted "delete" in the AFD where this editor caught my attention, giving WP:IAR as motivation and citing some of what you wrote above. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, it looks like that contributions are gaining a disproportionate amount of attention, and not in a good way. I am definitely not a paid editor, I'm just trying to be a part of this community like everyone else here, and I want to help take care of any mess you feel I may have caused on the site. I'm taking your advice on the Lucian Hudson article, cutting what may be considered bad sources from the article, as well as revising the wording, and I look forward to any additional guidance you may have on this front as to what might be best to remove. Amsterdad (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've been hoping to hear from you.
 * I have two suggestions: first, you could show the integrity of your editing by rewriting Michael Jay Moon around the only actual item clearly making for notability, his book, eliminating the promotional links and other puffery. Second, & only if you choose to, perhaps you can explain to me the basis on which you choose your topics. (That's entirely optional on your part -- nobody here has the right to ask who someone else actually is, directly or by implication. Just ignore the request if you like--I won't ask again.).
 * After you do Moon, take a look at the others. I am deliberately not nominating many of them for deletion yet, in order to first gauge the feeling of the community and give you a chance to respond, as you are doing . I have deliberately not started fixing the fixable ones yet, to give you a chance to improve them   DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will rework the Moon page and make my way through the others. As far as my process for choosing topics, there's no secret there. Right now, I'm taking care of small child at home, and find I have a bit more than the usual time to spend online during the day, so I read a lot. When I'm reading a news item or a tech article that interests me (a lot of tech articles, the reason why I have done a lot pages on tech startups), I start doing research. Wikipedia is usually where I turn first, and when the bigger names associated with the news I'm reading isn't there, I do the work myself. I tend to dig as deep as possible, finding out any details surrounding the subject, which I think has lead to my being noticed as to supplying perhaps too much information on my pages. Amsterdad (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding notability: Young Australian of the Year award
Hi DGG, I noticed you recently nominated several articles for AfD (for example Poppy King), citing mainly that the Young Australian of the Year Award does not confer notability. I would like to know what you base this argument upon? The recipients of this honour are selected by the National Australia Day Council and endorsed by the Australian Government in exactly the same way as the main award. The presentation to the winner is made by the Prime Minister of Australia at the same nationally televised ceremony as Australian of the Year. The recipients are also VIP guests at the Flag raising ceremony alongside the Governor-General of Australia and Australia Day ceremonial activities. Based on the criteria for nomination for the award, many of the recipients are already notable enough to have attracted national attention prior to receiving it, and winners will almost always be the subject of ongoing national media attention. As an Australian who lives in Canberra, the only outward difference I can see between Australian of the Year and young/senior Australian of the year is the age limits for these categories and one less televised speech at the flag raising ceremony. Looking at the deletion discussions, it appears a large majority of other editors also feel the award is highly notable, if not as notable as Australian of the Year. Dfadden (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Three lines of argument: First, most of them have done very little by the time of the award, thought about half have notable careers later. Many of the awards of of the human interest variety-- "how remarkable to do something of that so young", where the notable section is "so young" but the achievement otherwise unremarkable. Second, I consider that material for tabloids, not encyclopedia, and I have consistently opposed accepting "human interest" except on a greater than national scale, as a basis for coverage in WP.  Third, we have consistently not accepted youth championships in almost anything as notable, nor youth awards in any field at all. Even what I regard as the most famous of all--indeed possibly qualifying for being famous at an international level-- the Rhodes Scholarships, are not accepted for notability.
 * I would on the other hand be perfect willing to see a broadening of our notability policy across the board, including such aspects as youth. We're not paper, and as long as we can exclude promotionalism, there's no real limit to the depth we can cover (that's our problem will small companies, or locally important professionals--if we included them, the article would inevitably be promotional , or at least look like they were.  this level. When we broaden coverage, such thing as youthful importance could be included. When we accept participation in a division I American College football game as notability the way we do professional football, and accept such things as the Rhodes, I'lll accept these also.  WP can cover a broad as field as people wish  it to, but there should be some degree of consistency.
 * The degree of fuss made at a ceremony is not notability. The ceremonies should be included, and they are, in or articles on the awards. It would seem perfectly reasonable to do as we do, and include all the names.
 * I nominated the ones I did as a test to see what the community thinks, when one attracted by notice as being totally unremarkable. The consensus will decide, and based on what they do here, I will continue or let it be. I do not regard myself as the arbiter of notability -- the community does what it wants to do. Thre are many areas where I would prefer the consensus to be different, but once I know that I do not spend my time in fighting them.  I only make suggestions, and sometimes, like now, simply try probers to elucidate the standards.  DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the response, and respect your consistency in applying the same standards. I think in this case however (and granted my objectivity may be clouded by a subconscious patriotism) this is more than just a youth award. Nominees have to do something considered exceptional by both the community at large as well as the Australian Government to be considered eligible and while age is certainly a qualifying factor, the achievements are more often than not notable in their own right. Certainly, I reject any parallels to junior or reserve grade football players who are undeniably good at what they do and entertaining to watch, but are rarely motivated beyond self-interest to succeed at football - one of the criteria for this award is that the achievements are not self-serving (Poppy's case is not the strongest example I admit, but she identified a niche market and creating domestic employment and growth in any industry otherwise dominated by foreign interests - indeed she profited from the venture, but in doing so benefitted others and the National identity. Her age and the fact the company later failed are separate issues). With the articles in question it is more a case of them being poorly written and referenced so as not to highlight why they recipients achievements are notable, and I can see why you would challenge them. But as you said, the Wikipedia community will decide the standard that should be applied. Dfadden (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You said that "the achievements are more often than not notable in their own right,"  and I certainly agree that at least they sometimes are. In those cases, I would support notability, and consider the award as a contributing factor--but not the same automatic factor the adult award does.  DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

C)

Articles for deletion/Qutbi Bohra
Much respect for your close of the difficult discussion at Articles for deletion/Qutbi Bohra. Even though it wasn't the outcome I was looking for, I think your close was even-handed and fair given the obvious passions that those on either side of the dispute seem to have on the topic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Qutbi Bohra article

 * 1 ) I have no conflict of interest.
 * 2 ) If you know basic Bohra history and recent events regarding the succession, you will be aware that all written on the article is pure fiction / defamatory. I didn't understand why you closed Afd discussion so rapidly. Araz5152 is not able to give one reliable reference for what he has written.
 * 3 ) I'm NOT overtagging. I just want people known that the artcile written by Araz is completely non-sense like his other contributions.

Thanks. Ftutocdg (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * the tags I just put on are sufficient to indicate the dispute. I warned the other party also. You and the other party will need to find some way of resolving this. Do it on the talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am the author of Qutbi Bohra article. I had written this article just as an informative content for wikipedia and my intentions were to update the information regarding a new sect that was formed. I am a writer and have written many articles in different media. I love to write. I came to know of Wikipedia editing very recently through a friend when he showed me how wikipedia works and editors can make contributions. It was a time when i had heard of Qutbi Bohra and when i searched the internet i got evidence regarding the same in 3 newspapers mentioning it and a newsletter. This satisfied the noteablity ans verifyablity condition of the article. I gathered information regarding the sect from the community members whom i know and have recorded my discussion with them, with their permission. Further more i also got information regarding some past acts of Khuzaima Qutbuddin which were defamatory in nature but would prove the formation of the sect. But i did not use it as per the rules of wikipedia. I have written the entire article from third person point of view, as usually written for publications and have provided supportive evidence in most of the cases and due to frequent coercing by Ftutocdg i have also written a complete article,'succession issue' to explain the actual situation which Ftutocdg is trying to hide in his bid to get the Qutbi Bohra article removed. The reason that he is giving is just his point of view that he is trying to impose on the article. He has regularly done vandalism to this article and also has done the same to many Dawoodi Bohra articles along with some other editors in his group. As mentioned by Ftutocdg you can check the contribution i have made to Wikipedia, i have done all my edits with thorough study and reliable references. I would also like to suggest you to please look into the contribution of Ftutocdg and his group of editors they have just created a lot of chaos using the dark side of the very principles of Wikipedia the helps develop an article. I am sorry to say but i have spend more time giving explaination to Ftutocdg than write or edit an article. Whenever i login i first check whether he has vandalised the article or not. I have applied for protection in comments while reverting but i dont know the actual procedure involved. As regards your taggings i am very new to Wikipedia and i will require the help of experienced and well established administrators like you to guide me in my efforts. I request you if you can be more specific as to you tagging of the article in my talk page or article talk page so that i can take it up to the standards of Wikipedia. And also use the same principles when creating or editing other articles. Thank you again for all your efforts and time. Araz5152 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I commented on the article talk p. both about the tags, and about the method for resolving the disputes.  DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

i am sorry to disturb you but you are the only person who can get me out of this. You are aware of the Qutbi Bohra article where you had warned Ftutocdg against over tagging. Now he has joined hands with summichum, who already seems to have a bad reputation as he was blocked from editing. First summichum tagged the articles with many tags some of which you warned Ftutocdg about. When i reverted Ftutocdg reverted it back. Summichum was blocked for one day. Today he is back and he nominated the article for deletion again. Can you please suggest what i should do? Can you please help me out. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you help with an issue I'm having
I'm very inexperienced here but Dennis Brown had mentioned your name to me as a possible mentor since I'm mainly a scientist in my real life. I know he's busy now, but I've recently been the subject of a rather unpleasant campaign, and I don't know how to deal with it. I've never been through an RfD or had a situation in which a a few people threatening to block me for stuff I've said in my sandbox or on my talk page, collaborating to pre-certify a block of me, trying to dig through my archives and find my IP address and I need help in dealing with it. It has to do with content disputes on the Jimmy Henchman article. Is there any way you could help with procedures for addressing Wikihounding? BestScholarlyarticles (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I do not really have the time to mentor.  DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you tried the Teahouse? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Redirect page
Hi DGG,

Please let me know why you mentioned a comment like this "Protected Jorg Janke: repeatedly recreated as unjustifiable article ([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (expires 00:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (expires 00:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)))"? Please update me the reason. Reference : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jorg_Janke&action=history

Thanks WinningIndians — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winningindians (talk • contribs) 10:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a redirection Jorg Janke, the maker of Compiere, to the the article on his  software program Compiere,  Compiere is essentially the only thing he is known for. and there is zero personal information in the bio--it is entirely about the firm and its product.  The AfC submission was declined 7 times by different editors.  OIt haf not been worked on since June 26, ; jad I not rescued it in this manner, it would have been eligible for speedy deletion as a abandoned draft.

I have protected the redirect for 2 months; this will give anyone interested a time to write a proper biographical article. You can still do it in AfC, which I did not protect. (If you have enough sourced material to do so) DGG ( talk ) 13:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC

Question on neutral tone
Hi DGG, many thanks for your comments on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Burton_Anderson. I am starting to work on it but I would appreciate to know if I am headed in the right direction. For Example, I substituted the quote from NYT from "Mr. Anderson brings a reporter's tenacity and a novelist's touch to his work" with "it paints vivid portraits of stubborn men and women for whom extracting the best products from fields and forests constitutes the 'highest form of self-fulfillment: art, passion, a way of life'." Is this the right thing to do? Or are they both valid quotes and I should look elsewhere for changes? WG Wine (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , they are both too flowery for an encyclopedia. To get the right tone: (a) Try to avoid a/adjectives of praise, (in fact, use few adjectives of any sort as possible)  (b) Avoid display type formatting such as lists with colons, like I'm using here -- (it's ok here because these are instructions, which generally do need a list format) (c) Don;t use unnecessary words, eg. "men and women" instead of "people" (d)  Avoid anything that sounds like a catch phrase, like "self-fulfillment".  (e) Avoid anything that strikes you as particularly clever, like "fields and forests" (f) Use    plain sentences, avoiding too much variety, and minimizing even sentence inversion. I will sometimes use an occasional inversion to break up a like series of parallelism, or at the beginning or end of a paragraph, but not several in a row.  My personal style uses a good many periodic sentences, but I try to limit their use in articles. As a point of detail: We do not refer to people by their titles, such as Mr. We use just the last name, avoiding even the first name except in the lede sentence and the start of  major subject divisions. And I try to avoid even the name except once a paragraph: "he" or "his" is usually better; in articles on organizations, I use "the firm" or "it" (or "they" in a UK context).
 * Look at it this way: if Mr Anderson were to come to me and say, "I bring a reporter's tenacity to my work" what would I think of him? I don't know about you, but I'd think him pompous and self-important.
 * The advice in Strunk and White is nowadays often regarded as inappropriate for lively prose, but it usually works well here. We don't want to sound lively, we want to sound clear, dull, and descriptive. What should sound striking and attract attention, are the notable accomplishments, and they show up better when embedded in writing that does not attract attention to itself.  DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I made several revisions/deletions trying to follow your suggestions. I erased the two quotations mentioned above and substituted them with a factual account of the reviewer in the NYT. I also added a bibliography, qualified the notability of the author making a comment on his blog about Anderson, added references where missing, deleted quote from Matt Kramer calling a book written by Anderson a masterpiece, deleted information about foreign language editions. All other references that give judgements on Anderson's books are from major newspapers. Should I re-submit? Thanks again for your help. WG Wine (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I made some further changes and accepted it. The changes were of several sorts: First, I verified and corrected some of the book titles. There are some additional books listed in WorldCat; I did not add the ones on specific wines, because I am not sure whether they are not excerpts from his larger books. I also didn't try to include all editions and their translations (that sort of detail is normally not necessary here, though I did include as many languages as possible to show the range of languages.) Second, I normalized some of the format: you accidentally omitted perhaps the key link of all, the one to Italian wine. We link newspaper titles (and everything else) only the first time they appear, but they always go in italics; article titles go in quotes, not italics. There is no need to list books you do not discuss in both a section on the books and his bibliography--I left in the main part only the ones you discussed. Third & most important,I removed the contention section--it's excessive detail and introduces too many quotes.  DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! WG Wine (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Eva Moskowitz
Just wandering around aimlessly, I noticed that some time ago you had engineered a badly-needed AfD on Success Academy Charter Schools. The same editor maintains the related article on Eva Moskowitz in a similar state. Probably, engaging with him is useless. So, what's the appropriate thing to do in this situation? --JBL (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by precedent. members of the City Council in NYC and Chicago are generally notable. So the problem is the excessive length & detail of the article. As the ed. is not a single purpose editor for her or the group, but one with general interests and many excellent contrtibutions, I would not assume they would be unwilling to discuss.  But in general the first step would be reducing it to size (I've made a minimal start at this--I think this is usually best done   stepwise, explaining each step.) ; it will probably  be reverted. If so the second step should be nominating it for AfD on the grounds that it is excessively promotional and unfixable, and must be deleted and started over.   DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --JBL (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

PRSA Foundation
Popped up on my radar because a merge discussion template was added to the Public Relations Society of America page, which I brought up to GA. I have taken it to AfD, which I think is the appropriate place for it. There is not a sufficient amount of salvageable material to merge with the PRSA page (basically none) for it to be considered a merge, in my opinion. CorporateM (Talk) 14:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Do I need to wait for the afd to play out? I was thinking three of us agreeing unanimously is "good enough" CorporateM (Talk) 05:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * the general practice is that it is better to wait. There could be a SNOW close, but I can't be the one to do it.  DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

\

AFD Menshed Australia
HI DGG noticed you prod'd the article, there is a BBC documentary link as a source I have sent it to AFD instead Articles for deletion/Mensheds Australia Gnangarra 07:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * yuk, just noticed that the creator User:Verdict78 is a sockpuppet, as there is no substancial content from other editors I'll delete it and the afd, but I see you have also prod'd other articles by the user on notability grounds, can you please review those and note sock creation if no other substantive content contributors. Gnangarra 07:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Submission declined on 6 March 2014 by DGG (talk)... Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Chequered Justice
Is there any possibility of getting some help with this submission please? We’re not sure what we’re supposed to do despite reading your help section.

We’re trying to submit information on a unique audio book that has been voiced by a legendary English actor, Leslie Phillips CBE, at 90 years of age! Leslie’s contribution to the arts is phenomenal and this latest work in his final years is very likely to create a lot of interest. Hence we are trying to submit information prior to its release on his 90th birthday (being covered by BBC Breakfast in April), especially as it’s the first time an audio book has been given a full ‘Cinematic Style’ backing track with a running time of over 22 hours, equal to more than ten feature length movies. This is in itself a major feat at the age of 90.

Originally we were asked to provide “reliable sources and verifications before resubmitting” which we have done…. Now the submission has been declined as being “not notable”… We had thought that a distinguished star of more that 130 films with a career spanning some eight decades, producing a first in the history of audio books i.e. the first ‘Cinematic Style’ audio book, would be considered notable! We have made a couple of changes to the text but are these sufficient? Is something else needed please?

We also noticed that the pictures uploaded have been removed despite having notified Wikipedia that we actually own the copyright of the images and have made them freely available.

Any help would be appreciated thanks!

Many thanks… — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmazingJourneys (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggested the best solution: make a redirect to the article on the individual, where the book is already covered sufficiently. To facilitate matters, & avoid any conflict of interest, I have just done that for you, which is the most effective help I can provide.
 * Looking more carefully at the article, quite apart from notability, it reads as an advertisement, and I shall list it for deletion as such. We do not do promotion regardless of notability. the plot summary in particular seems to be copied from a published book jacket or blurb, and even if you owned and gave permission for that it would not be suitable. Additionally, as written it serves as promotion for his apparently unsuccessful legal case. We do not do that. Your comment above is promotional for the voice actor's version. We do not do advertising here, on talk pages or articles. Furthermore, you are apparently using the name of a magazine publisher for your user name. I shall have to block it--only individuals may edit. On your new user page, regardless of what name or pseudonym you use,  you do have to state your conflict of interest with the publisher.  DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Artificial (film)
Howdy DGG. It may well be an insignificant film, but it has received just enough coverage and commentary to meet WP:NF. A film does not have to Star Wars to be notable. Project will benefit from it remaining and being improved over time and through regular editing. Care to re-consider?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 15:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I withdrew the AfD .  DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you that and for the kind words at the AFD.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Added advert, copypaste and peacock tags
Hi DGG, I made some drastic changes to the article that I tried to properly describe in the edit summaries. I had used as examples for my work this and this, and I thought I did better than those by not giving out any praise of my own, but only limiting that to well referenced quotes. The second example I gave you instead has this sentence "internationally regarded as one of the world's most influential wine critics", while the first one even uses the word widely twice in the same sentence: "widely acknowledged to be the most widely known and influential wine critic in the world today". I now realize that I had chosen the wrong models, even though everything seems fine with those articles and they are even rated (surprisingly, at least for me) C-class.

Back to my work, I checked thoroughly the text, the quotes and references with respect to copypaste issue and everything seems fine to me. The only thing I added was the acknoledgement of (content on O'Keefe/Brunellopoli copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunellopoli). I kept those 3 quotes as so-called Brunellopoli was a big deal in the Italian wine world, with hundred of thousands of bottles sequestered for illicit blending. O'Keefe is the only writer I know of, in addition to NYT Eric Asimov (mentioned in the Brunellopoli article), to go on record years before the scandal broke to imply that something was wrong. Given the delicate nature of the matter, with several trials involved, I thought it was relevant and interesting for a wine lover to read directly what she said, instead of paraphrasing it.

I did limit the quotes about the Brunello (2012) book to only one. I used the one I thought expressed an interesting concept ("one of the rare wine books that is truly important"), rather than merely giving out praise, leaving to the reader who wants to find out why Dawson thinks the book is truly important click on the review. I also kept 10 of the 15 additional references about the book that I had, as after all the work I did hunting them down I did not want to throw out the water and the baby with it, as a reader might be interested to check out directly the reviews of the book. Having read all of them, I am only debating if the sentence I used ("reviewed positively by other wine experts") is appropriate or it is better to omit the term positively and let the reader check them out on his own.

In the Contentions section Tim Crane, professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge and keen wine expert, put O'Keefe in the camp of 2 British wine critics, all with their own Wikipedia page, rather than the US critic mentioned before. I added the fact that he wrote about this in The Times Literary Supplement, as I find it significant as it rarely deals with wine books.

I also let the second sentence which refers to the NYT wine critic commenting on an O'Keefe article. What I found interesting is that it is not a passing mention as this is his introductory sentence:  "Fascinating article in the current issue of “The World of Fine Wine,’’ a glossy, erudite and, alas, very expensive British wine quarterly that always has many things worth reading. This article, by Kerin O’Keefe, a wine writer based in Italy, suggests that the Super-Tuscan category, which has attracted so much attention in the last 35 years, may have run its course." I realize I am taking to much space here so I will leave at this, as other changes I made are documented. WG Wine (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I copied this to the article talk p., where those working on the article whoever they may be will see it. I think I've done & said enough. In many subjects, there tends to be a certain style in in writing, which tends to be reflected in our articles.  DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG, sorry, I should have known I had to post it on the talk page of the article, but this is the first human interaction I have on wikipedia. I made some further changes and updated the talk page accordingly. WG Wine (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * any way of communicating is good. For that matter, almost any way of article writing is good, and there are many different styles. That I might write something different from the way you would does not mean that one of us is wrong. And if I ever seem to come on too positively about something ,let me know, because the hardest thing to do here is judge the tone one is using, and especially to judge how it will be perceived. I have to rely on complaints and questions to get feedback.  DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Karl Templer (2)
Hello DGG - I see that you have deleted an article about this topic twice before, so I thought that you might want to know that it's back again. I can't see if it's similar to the ones you deleted or not. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I had engaged with the author before you had moved the sandbox. I haven't gotten a response from the author yet, but I'm not seeing an understanding of the notability criteria. We'll see. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Chris troutman. Yes, the first thing I always do when I see a submission in a sandbox is move it into Afc and give it a proper title.  There are editors who like to help out by improving articles-to-be that they are interested in, and they won't find ones called "sandbox".  Also, unless the submissions have the same prefix they won't appear alphabetically in the category sorts. This one didn't look that good to me either.  I thought that DGG might be able to tell if it was any improvement over previous submissions. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Breen's Practice
Dear DGG: I see that you commented on this draft when I first postponed it. I have removed wads of essay-like material, shortened up the plot summary and removed the list of minor characters. I added some references. What do you think of the result? Does it need more trimming, or have I overdone it? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I accepted it, Its OK by my standards, but some others will still object to the extent and lack of sourcing for the plot and characters sections. So I would cut back yet further on the plot, and use specific references from the reviews for at least some specific points in the plot and characters section.  It also would be improved by a sourced discussion of where it fits into the author's oeuvre, and a bibliography of where it has been published from then to now, including in collected editions. I think we should have articles of this sort for all significant novels. Traditional general encyclopedias did not do this, but we can.  DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Japec Jakopin
Hello Mr. Goodman,

your banner: "This article reads like a news release, or is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone. Please help by either rewriting this article from a neutral point of view or by moving this article to Wikinews. When appropriate, blatant advertising may be marked for speedy deletion with db-spam" on the article I have written requires a response. The topic why the article was written at all, though interesting, would require a longer and more personal explanation, probably not suited to this space but which I would nevertheless be glad to write on e-mail - mine is andreja.j20@gmail.com.

To make the long story short - the list of Slovenian inventors, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Slovenes#Inventors is really poor, all but the last (who is not known in Slovenia) are long long dead, and I decided to do something about it. Two most prominent modern contributors are Ivo Boscarol, the founder of Pipistrel ultralight aircraft maker and winner of several NASA awards: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/centennial/gfc_final.html#.UxrxELXg1Y8 and Japec Jakopin, the developer of very successful hybrid boats. As Ivo Boscarol had his page on WP a year or so ago (now removed for the reasons not known to me), I tried to make one on Japec Jakopin.

Thank you for your work in making the article more encyclopedic, I continued to shorten and streamline it - now it is 9.184 bytes long, down from 15.812 it had on November 29 when it was submitted for review. I also tried to tune the (promotional) tone down as much as I could. Further downsizing is certainly possible, but of course at the expense of the content.

I am open to your further suggestions.

Best

AndyKamy (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I need to apologize, that the wording of these tags is standardized, and usually overformal, and can include too many possible problems. There is an advantage in using formal tags to avoid erratic advice, but they do not always meet the situation perfectly. I continue to think the medical career part could be shortened, since that's not what's he's notable for. As for Ivo Boscarol, there seems to be a very short article that badly needs expansion, if you care to do it. I certainly hope you continue to write articles on important people in relatively neglected areas here--it's one of our greatest needs.  DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I have read your pages before doing anything and observed a few typos and other simple errors. Now I have corrected them, 33 in all. The medical career part of the Japec Jakopin article I have left because it is, though peculiar, important for what happened next. I will also try to write an article on Ivo Boscarol, as suggested. But it will take some time, his Slovenian wiki page is of little use though reasonable Slovenian references are not so difficult to find. For proper ones in English the situation is less easy. AndyKamy (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Duplicates
Hallo David, While stub-sorting CNS Drugs (Journal) (one which you'd moved from AfC) I checked to see what there was at CNS Drugs and found an identical article! The AfC one was created at 2041 bytes on 17 September 2012 by User:AabiedD, and the mainspace one created on 25 October 2012 (ie 5 weeks later), also at 2041 bytes, by User:Do$h12. My first instinct was to speedy the AfD version as A10, but in fact it seems to have been the earlier creation so the wrong editor would be left credited with the article. As you moved the AfC article into namespace, creating the duplicate, I leave it to you to decide what to do with the pair of them! Pam D  20:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * cleaned up the text.  DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So we now have an article with an unnecessary disambiguation, as CNS Drugs redirects to CNS Drugs (journal). I was about to list it as an "uncontroversial technical move" request at WP:RM, then wondered if I was missing something and you'd left it that way deliberately? Pam  D  15:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , I moved the material to CNS Drugs (journal) deliberately, because I think it is much clearer when the name of a publication is also a likely look up term for an article.  I am aware that the WP doesn't like to  do this, and so I don't go around adding it,  but we have many exceptions in book and journal and film names, either deliberately or inadvertently.  DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I'm glad I didn't just take it to WP:RM as an uncontroversial move! There are two discussions which might interest you, on the topic of "unnecessary" disambiguators: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(UK_Parliament_constituencies) and Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles, the latter of which I've only just stumbled upon.  Pam  D  18:04, 13 March 2014 (UT

Notability review
Hello DGG. Can you please review Ghulam Ahmad (engineer) for notability. Thanks -- S M S   Talk 12:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * possibly notable as executive. the article is however excessive, & I left a comment--and started trimming.  DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Request to Userfy the Page
Hello, I built a page called Premier Financial Bancorp, it was deleted for it was like advertisement. It's my fault and I want to modify it. Could you please userfy it for me? Thank you! ReganChai (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Patrick W. Hsu, MD FACS
Hi DGG, After your speedy deletion of this it's been posted again, and is now the subject of an AfD discussion. I've requested speedy and salting the article, which has enjoyed enough incarnations in the past months. Thanks, JNW (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done . Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Imbaba Bridge
Hi. I noticed you postponed the G13 speedy deletion of the AFC draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Imbaba Bridge. I have gone ahead and rewrote the draft from information I've verified through sources I found online. Do you think you could take a look at it? Thanks. Mz7 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * good job. This is what AfC is for--not just so the original ed. can fix it, but so others can. The Upper and Lower Egypt didnt make sense to me, as upper Egypt in normally considered to start hundreds of miles from Cairo, so I removed it, pending clarification are hundreds of miles   DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The Upper/Lower Egypt part was from this book. I don't think it's very important, though. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Submission declined on 6 March 2014 by DGG (talk)... Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Chequered Justice
Is there any possibility of getting some help with this submission please? We’re not sure what we’re supposed to do despite reading your help section.

We’re trying to submit information on a unique audio book that has been voiced by a legendary English actor, Leslie Phillips CBE, at 90 years of age! Leslie’s contribution to the arts is phenomenal and this latest work in his final years is very likely to create a lot of interest. Hence we are trying to submit information prior to its release on his 90th birthday (being covered by BBC Breakfast in April), especially as it’s the first time an audio book has been given a full ‘Cinematic Style’ backing track with a running time of over 22 hours, equal to more than ten feature length movies. This is in itself a major feat at the age of 90.

Originally we were asked to provide “reliable sources and verifications before resubmitting” which we have done…. Now the submission has been declined as being “not notable”… We had thought that a distinguished star of more that 130 films with a career spanning some eight decades, producing a first in the history of audio books i.e. the first ‘Cinematic Style’ audio book, would be considered notable! We have made a couple of changes to the text but are these sufficient? Is something else needed please?

We also noticed that the pictures uploaded have been removed despite having notified Wikipedia that we actually own the copyright of the images and have made them freely available.

Any help would be appreciated thanks!

Many thanks… — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmazingJourneys (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggested the best solution: make a redirect to the article on the individual, where the book is already covered sufficiently. To facilitate matters, & avoid any conflict of interest, I haver just done that for you, which is the most effective help I can provide.
 * Looking more carefully at the article, quite apart from notability, it reads as an advertisement, and I shall list it for deletion as such. We do not do promotion regardless of notability. the plot summary in particular seems to be copied from a published book jacket or blurb, and even if you owned and gave permission for that it would not be suitable. Additionally, as written it serves as promotion for his apparently unsuccessful legal case. We do not do that. Your comment above is promotional for the voice actor's version. We do not do advertising here, on talk pages or articles. Furthermore, you are apparently using the name of a magazine publisher for your user name. I shall have to block it--only individuals may edit. On your new user page, regardless of what name or pseudonym you use,  you do have to state your conflict of interest with the publisher.  DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving from subpage
Hi there – thanks for your help in improving article – now improved (I think) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HFJ/Matthew_Schellhorn. Can you help me republish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HFJ (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * done.  DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you restore the old talk page (you can delete the talk page I created) then add any BLP/WPBiography and "old prod" templates to the top? Thanks. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * fixed. My apologies, I should have thought to do it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:APerson/Archive 2#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carbone Smolan Agency to Carbone Smolan Agency
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:APerson/Archive 2. APerson (talk!) 03:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC):::comm entedd there - DGG

Nomination of Ken Pugh (Fellow Consultant) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ken Pugh (Fellow Consultant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ken Pugh (Fellow Consultant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I commented, thanks.~
 * (NOTE: It was kept as NO CONSENSUS). I will renominate. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration revert
Please do not revert any collapsing of comments that was done by an arbitration clerk on an ArbCom page, as you did here. --Rschen7754 03:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Issue in which you may have been involved
An issue in which you may have been involved is being discussed at WT:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Grant Mossop
Hello David--how are you? Busy, I hope. Perhaps, if you're not that busy, you can have a look at this biography, which I ran into yesterday, and beef it up a little bit? I consider all these academic bios to be your territory--and, of course, that of (I'm sure you've met: if not, David, Randy; Randy, David). Drmies (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * will do.Ref 1 is reliable and quite full.  DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

WellStar Douglas Hospital
Sorry to bug you, but I was forced to remove the proposed deletion tag from this article. It had already been proposed for deletion on and the deleted was contested (the editor contesting it also left a note on the article's discussion page which clued me into the previous de-prod). I can't delete it as a proposed deletion, but I doubt it will survive AfD if you want to bring it there. Just letting you know, thanks. --  At am a  頭 17:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, this article is an odd one, WellStar Health System. It looks like a quasi-disambiguation page. --  At am a  頭 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching it; Probably I'm going to try a merge of the content from the individual articles. There's a problem with articles on such health-care systems in general.  DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

About Hubertus Antonius van der Aa
DGG, I've been thinking about this. The CSD might in fact have had some merit, even if only as a test case. As far as I can see, no species are currently linked to Aa as a binomial authority on any of the various languages Wikipedias. Aa might appear to fail WP:GNG, despite being a named binomial authority. Do you think it would be too WP:POINTy to start an AfD? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If he is on the list of abbreviations, then there are species; my understanding is that the abbreviations are not assigned otherwise. It's just a matter of doing the work. I will ask the ed. who submitted the article, because it wasn't good practice to do such a skimpy job of it: entering names from such an index without doing more is not acceptable--it's like adding articles from an index of towns without adding some sort of identification.     I think it has been definitely established that describing a species is sufficient for notability,. If someone should insist I can fit it within  the GNG, because there are always subsequent works on the group of organisms discussing the species. (I used to make similar arguments regularly, before WP:PRIOF was so definitively accepted)  The effort spent in an AfD would be better spent  in doing the work. The relevant task force can be asked to do it if the orginal ed. doesn;t. Botany is not my specialty, but I can give it a try in a week or two.  DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got the material, but I still have to forma it properly.  DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

help
Please remove tag from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Yong-ok

A disruptive user is tagging a bunch of articles including one I created. I am not allowed to remove the tag per instructions since I created the article on the Korean governor. More info is also on my talk page. One user said you are working on fixing this problem user. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Help still appreciated but tag has been removed by someone else. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

, what this needs is additional information about his career. The references would seem to provide s more detail, and it should be added. A short translation of a key part of the second source too is needed, and a translation of the article titles of both sources. Additionally, the references need to indicate the source, e.g. Korea Daily, such and such a date, accessed on ... -- they have to provide enough information to find the material even if it goes off line.  DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Pitscottie
Dear DGG: Since you have accepted this article, shouldn't you at least rewrite the parts outside the quotation, which are not the same as the original gazetteer entry and have prominent copyright notices? Or have they just copied that text too from another older source? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll go back and fix it. thanks for noticing.  DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Qutbi Bohra article
i would like to bring to your kind attention that the Qutbi article has been vandalised beyond recognition. the process of wait and watch you had suggested has resulted in that group of editors who were literally vandalising the article by illegitimate blanking and by gaming the system; have now made it into an advertisement of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. they have even added a personal legal notice not at all connected with Qutbi Bohra. you still consider their edit to be a good faith edit? and instead of stopping them will you still stand by their side? the last time they had done a lot of harm. and regarding that info by sam you had quoted in your suggestion earlier it is just part of that article the full article will give a clear picture. . i am really sorry for using the name of editor but if you check the talk pages of these editors you will see that all of them have been called by Ftutocdg and they are doing what Ftutocdg is asking them to. they are not concerned with the article or its content but only with their pov for Khuzaima Qutbuddin. they have incited you against the content but their intention is to either delete the article or make it meaningless and use it for their own purposes. i request you to please do the needful and save the article. at least try to see through their plan.

and regarding my article at AFC it is not for publishing. dont worry. and this time i did not find the plus sign. on the mobile i see the pen shaped logo, when i click it it opens a edit box, which does not have any plus sign. when i type and save it saves on top. Araz5152 (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Imbaba Bridge
Hi. I noticed you postponed the G13 speedy deletion of the AFC draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Imbaba Bridge. I have gone ahead and rewrote the draft from information I've verified through sources I found online. Do you think you could take a look at it? Thanks. Mz7 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * good job. This is what AfC is for--not just so the original ed. can fix it, but so others can. The Upper and Lower Egypt didnt make sense to me, as upper Egypt in normally considered to start hundreds of miles from Cairo, so I removed it, pending clarification are hundreds of miles   DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The Upper/Lower Egypt part was from this book. I don't think it's very important, though. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

news release tag on Emergent BioSolutions page
I read over the article, looked at the sources, looked at the way article was worded, etc. It doesn't read like a news release. Can you offer supporting evidence? Thanks Trendyrandy7290 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It reads like a sequence of press releases, sourced to press releases. It's most notable drug it didn't even develop itself, but bought the company that made it. It also seems a little exaggerated. The lede talks about "expanded product development", but as far as I can tell from the article, it never developed any notable products. In fact the article doesn't state it ever developed any products at all, just acquired firms that have done so. Perhaps the article should be written around that. The article implies NYSE listing, but if it is, what's its symbol?  DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Creating an article for the Warwick Economics Summit
Dear DGG, I'm Francois, from the Warwick Economics Summit. We are a student-run academic conference at Warwick University. We would like to have a wikipedia article, but this has been blocked by a user named RHaworth, who doesn't view our conference as 'notable'. He has suggested that I find a sponsor to create the article on my behalf. I was wondering if you would be happy to collaborate on this. Please find my article in my sandbox. Thanks for your time. Kind regards, Fstiennon. --Fstiennon (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've looked at ths, and also the two earlier versions of the article. What you absolutely need are some 3rd part reliable published sources talking about the summit, not just incidental notices. They should come from outside they university. None of your references, which are mostly about the particular speeches there, are in the sources because the person speaking was notable, not because of the summit. If you have such sources, add them to the article and ask me to look again. Otherwise, I agree with  that an article may be impossible.  DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear DGG, Thank you for your message. I understand the need to reference our article; although we don't have feature articles on the summit specifically from broadsheet newspapers, we do have detailed media coverage from respectable sources including the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Reuters, The Telegraph and the Harvard Gazette. As with many conferences, the published sources focus on the speakers rather than the organisation of the conference and its operations. Whether our event is notable should be evaluate with respect to the calibre of our speakers and the quality of our brand (this year we sold out in 7 minutes). In terms of student run conferences, they don't come bigger than the Warwick Economics Summit. I understand that this needs to be proven, but it isn't always easy for student-run events to get the media attention they deserve. King regards, --Fstiennon (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The community decides about notability. I would not be dealing with you fairly if I did not give you my most careful opinion of what the community will decide, and I would be acting improperly as an administrator if I did not carry out those functions entrusted to me individually except as I think the community will judge. There are no formal standards for accepting an AfC, but the usual one, and the one I go by, is that it will have a better than even chance of surviving a discussion at AfD. And since accepting this would over-ride protection, I will only over-ride protection if I am pretty sure the community would support me. So it's not a matter of convincing me personally  that WP would be better off if we accepted the article.


 * There are no special established standards for conference series, though I personally think we should develop them. In their absence, the only accepted standard is WP:GNG. As you recognize, there are problems with using it for this topic: the sources are not substantially about the conference. Whether the community is willing to make an exception  is difficult to  predict, but I follow the discussions, and almost all articles on conferences are rejected unless there is firm evidence that outside third parties have considered the conference as particularly important in published material--it does not have to be broadsheet newspapers--and this happens whether or not I argue to make an exception. Additionally, most decisions about college student events of any sort have been unwilling to consider them as notable. Combining these factors, I clearly can't accept this based on my own opinion.


 * But there is a procedure by which the community can make exceptions in cases like yours: WP:Deletion Review. Just as the consensus at WP makes our rules, WP also can make exceptions whenever there is consensus to do so. On the basis of my habitual participation there, the most accurate thing I can say about the likely decision at Deletion Review is that it is completely unpredictable. My advice is to add the strongest articles you can find, and then take it there. If you can show that it is in fact generally regarded as exceptionally important, the decision might be favorable.


 * But some advice: please don't talk about "brand" except for commercial products. And be aware that we consider as promotion the argument that we ought to have an article about something because it would be beneficial for the world to know about it; the requirement here is that the world actually has shown it does want to know about it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding material to stubs only serves to draw the attention of Wikipedians who nominate  articles for deletion
In 2012 I wrote in the thread Useless stubs on your talk page (sorry I don't know how to search your archives): "The reason I stopped adding material to many stubs is my concern that it will only serve to draw the attention of Wikipedians who  nominate  articles for deletion. Maybe other Wikipedians feel as I do?" and just wanted to let you know that today, many edits later, I feel very strongly that this is an issue that is affecting not only me, but many others. XOttawahitech (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It can draw attention in two ways--if someone is specifically checking a person's contributions & has doubts about what they add,  or if someone watchlisted the stub and meant to go back for deletion but never did. In either case, the only remedy is to make the additions so substantial that nobody will doubt them. I don't see how it is avoidable. The fundamental problem is that a good deal of incomplete and also of poor material stays in WP unimproved because of obscurity. I can check your contributions and see what happened, but it will help if  are there some I should look at specifically.  DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have expanded many stubs on notable topics over the years and have once never had one nominated for deletion. As DGG asked, can you mention an example or two where this has happened?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting. I see comments such as yours frequently on Wikipedia and I am always curious to find out how it is possible for different individuals to have such different experiences here. I therefore took the liberty to look up some olf your public statistics so that I can compare them with mine--  I hope you don’t mind.


 * Here are some of my findings:
 * Your edit history shows 795 deleted edits – do you know which edits were deleted and why?
 * Your edit count indicates that the majority of your edits are in namespaces that are rarely deleted, such as your own user page and various talkpages
 * Your Average edits per page are almost 6 – I am speculating that most of your edits are to established articles and not to stubs?


 * I also wonder how much you contribute to fringe areas such as women/minority/undeveloped countries/business/etc.? Sorry for answering a question with a question. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, my experience is very contrary to yours. Here's a stub I expanded today (a rather strange dish popular in Finland and Estonia). It was already proposed for deletion when I saw it, but when I finished, the editor who had proposed it, thanked me. :-) I mostly prefer to create articles from scratch, but I also do a reasonable amount of stub expansion, sort of a wiki-hobby. Here's a small sample of them. Note that none of these topics are what I would call "mainstream":

Gaston Arman de Caillavet stub state; Parts (book) stub state; Catherine Destivelle stub state; Antonia Merighi stub state; Fanny Salvini-Donatelli stub state; Elena Cernei stub state; Josep Feliu i Codina stub state; Aureliano in Palmira stub state; Alphonse Royer stub state; Colonna, City of Rome stub state

None of the stubs I've expanded have been deleted. I know because whenever I expand one, it goes on my watchlist. I also do not expand stubs unless I can find references for them and I think the encyclopedia would significantly benefit from its expansion. For example, I'd never bother with this or this. Voceditenore (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , I do not keep track of my deleted edits, and don't care at all if a small percentage are deleted. I do know that no article to which I've made substantive contributions has been deleted, although I think a few have been merged or renamed. I list many articles on my user page that I discovered at AfD and expanded and referenced. Many of these were stubs when I first encountered them.


 * Yes, I often work in areas where my edits are unlikely to be removed. That includes AfD which I consider a critically important "behind the scenes" area, and where I am pretty much equally likely to recommending keeping articles as deleting them. I also spend a lot of time at the Teahouse, answering questions from new editors and encouraging them to stick with Wikipedia. Many of these editors come to my talk page, where I actively welcome new editors to visit and ask questions. I consider this work to be important to the operation and development of the encyclopedia. I do not nominate articles for deletion, which is my own personal decision.


 * I have started or expanded about 300 articles, and I spend relatively little time working on "safe", well-developed articles. When I do major work on an article, adding references establishing notability is always high on my list. Here are some articles I've written or expanded about the topic areas you mentioned:


 * Minority (non-white) women: Nellie Charlie, Carrie Bethel, Lucy Telles, Shipra Mazumdar, Jennifer Lim (theatre actress), Murder of Michelle Le,


 * Women: Leni Sinclair, Mary Gardiner, Miriam O'Brien Underhill, Morleigh Steinberg, Sheri Fink, Lella Vignelli, Murder of Donna Jones, Cindy Pawlcyn, Arlene Blum, Mary Hunter Austin, Lynn Hill, Ania Bien, Kate Botello, Veda Shook, Jenny Hill (politician), Romola Remus, Naomi Wilzig, Michelle Kaufmann, Maria Filotti


 * Minority (non-white) men: Dugan Aguilar, Chris Brown (dancer), Al Qöyawayma, Leon Jordan, Rango Bapuji Gupte, Shantaveri Gopala Gowda


 * Businesses: Gladding, McBean, Sonoma TrainTown Railroad, Hagafen Cellars, Mezzetta, Marin French Cheese Company, Whoa Nellie Deli, Casa de Fruta, Lion Brand, Muntz Car Company, Ephraim Faience Pottery, Pendleton Woolen Mills, The Walt Disney Family Museum, Levi Strauss & Co., California and Hawaiian Sugar Company, Grueby Faience Company, White Motor Company, Beerenberg Farm, Hunter Douglas N.V., Julius Blum, Sandusky Automobile Company, AnandTech, Falesco, De Echoput


 * As for "undeveloped" countries, a significant amount of my editing has to do with India, for whatever that's worth. I do not consider these "fringe" topics; I consider them encyclopedic topics. I am in general agreement with the comments by .  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * (apologies to DGG for monopolizing his talkpage – should we move this discussion elsewhere?)


 * Thanks for the response. I appreciate you taking the time to detail it so carefully. I see that you do contribute a fair amount to so-called fringe/unsafe areas, (see also WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias_in_The_Signpost) – this is absolutely great and I wish there were (many) more of you on Wikipedia.


 * You said that you do not keep track of your deleted edits, but I am still curious to find out what edits which you had contributed to wikipedia are no longer visible to me and why.


 * You also say that you don't care at all if a small percentage of your edits are deleted – but I do care. It may be a small percentage to you, but 795 edits is more than most editors ever contribute to Wikipedia and knowing the quality of your work, should not be discarded in such an offhand manner in my humble opinion. Have you ever stopped to think how long you spend on an edit on average? I don’t know how old you are, but we all have a limited number of hours left on this earth, and, to me  at least, those hours do have value. So I for one appreciate every minute that people find to add material to wikipedia so that millions of others may benefit from the sharing knowledge. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Now it's my turn.
 * There are some areas in which I have worked where articles, however improved, are likely to be deleted. This especially applies to topics like List of XX in some type of fiction, or Cultural references to someone or something, or some particular sexual practice, or people in fringe science. There are areas like this where there are no consistent standards over the years, and the articles are vulnerable to changes in the fashion of doing things here. When I started 7 years ago some of my articles on databases & journals were deleted, but nowadays such articles are almost always kept--perhaps my efforts had something to do with it.   I find it challenging and exciting to work on areas where the boundaries are uncertain, & I do not very easily get discouraged. Working at the edges is the way to bring about change, and anyone who does this will find their work not always successful.
 * I also will sometimes do work I know to be incomplete, in the hope others will finish it. This apples often to colleges with inadequate coverage, or relatively minor writers.  I'll do enough to keep it from immediate deletion, but the long range result depends on others.  If some don't get saved, that's an acceptable tradeoff for the many that do. I learned very early on as a molecular biologist that if all your experiments work, you're not being sufficiently creative. Those people who do not like it, need to stay away from such fields.
 * In the time I will be here, I want to make a difference. Some kinds of differences cannot be accomplished by playing safe.     DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please give us an example of the sort of edit to a stub which you think has brought someone to nominate the stub for deletion (as both DGG and Cullen have asked, above). I can't imagine how it would come about, unless someone is stalking your edits or, perhaps, searches on a keyword or link which you're adding to those stubs. If a stub is on someone's watchlist, I'd have thought it was because they want to see the article expanded, or are wary of some particular form of vandalism to which it's prone; if they just want rid of the article they'd have nominated it for deletion already. I'm sure I'm not the only one of David's many talk-page stalkers who's intrigued by this. I edit a lot of stubs, to stub-sort them and often to do some cleanup while I'm there - from adding a DEFAULTSORT to thoroughly rewriting a garbled text; sometimes I find the topic interesting and expand the stub with sourced info. But I don't generally add them to my watchlist. Pam  D  17:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued too, Ottawahitech. It's why I added above my own experiences (which are completely contrary to yours). Are you talking about new stubs other editors have created and which you tried to expand? Or stubs which you have created and then tried to expand? If they are new-ish stubs created by other editors, perhaps the page hadn't been marked as patrolled yet. If so, it would explain why there is a rather close proximity between your attempt at expansion and a new pages patroller looking at it and deciding (rightly or wrongly) that it wasn't enough. Any auto-confirmed editor can mark a new page as patrolled, including you, if you think the article is a valid one. Click on the small blue link at the bottom of the page: [Mark this page as patrolled] . This will take it out of the new pages patrolling queue, but note that you won't be able to do that with an article you have created yourself. I've looked at the articles you've created recently. Quite a few are one-sentence stubs about living people with a single reference and very little context, e.g. Christine M. Day was the CEO of Lululemon. (not even the time frame for when she held that position). It doesn't appear to have ever been proposed for deletion, but a stub like that is kind of asking for trouble. It's always best wait before starting an article, especially about a living person, until you have enough material for at least three sentences about them, rather more biographical information than simply their last job, and at least two (preferably three) reliable independent sources. I note that Christine M. Day has been marked as patrolled by another editor, so you should have a bash at expanding it from its current state which tells us much less about her than what is already in Lululemon Athletica - Voceditenore (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You say it is "best wait before starting an article…, until you have enough material for at least three sentences", but I disagree. Here is one example of an article I started: 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. It was an absolutely awful article, complete with spelling errors when I started it  after listening to many news reports and getting frustrated when nothing appeared on the topic at wikipedia for days.  It is a topic I know very little about, so was quite happy to see it take a life of its own through the efforts of 445 wikipedia editors. XOttawahitech (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For articles of unchallengeable importance, yes, I think it's good   when the next person who comes along finds some sort of an article. The need to write a complete article is greater if the t e notability is likely to be at all controversial or open to interpretation.  Even if you;'re sure it will be accepted in the end, the goal should be to not even have it challenged. (But at present in dealing with rescuing AfCs and such, I find my self forced to stop when it's just good enough. There is one thing that has remained the same for my 7 years here: there's too much that needs to be done, and done immediately.  DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree there is much to be done at wikipedia. My personal feeling is that one of the main reasons for this state of affiairs is what I wrote initially: too many editors dont want to touch articles that need work because they are afraid to draw the attention to those articles, and this leads, unfortunately, to (quote from User:Skookum1):
 * Wikipedia has too many people re-arranging deck chairs, and not enough building them.
 * xOttawahitech (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You have all asked me to provide "proof" justifying my feelings, and I believe I can accomplish this, but it required a lot of time. I don’t want to end up being accused of bad faith and all kinds of other wikipedia sins, so I decided to demonstrate my point using only one obvious editor, user:mrfrobinson, who   has edited nothing but pages that I have been involved with on these dates: During this period all the editors edits have involved only nominations for deletion/discussion, voting in such discussions, reverting my edits, discussing my edits on talk pages, and in one case asking an admin to get involved in  a talkpage discussion which involved me. Please feel free to check this users contributions on the above dates (hope there are no typos). Again, just to make it clear, I am not asking for sanctions to be placed against :mrfrobinson, he/she is only one of many. I am just using this user as an example to demonstrate why I feel the way I feel. XOttawahitech (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 20 January 2014 -- 21 January 2014,
 * 20:14, 25 January 2014 -- 16:31, 6 February 2014,
 * 15:41, 11 February 2014 -- 23:32, 12 February 2014,
 * 20:56, 15 February 2014 -- 19:41, 24 February 2014
 * 14:00, 27 February 2014 -- 00:17, 3 March 2014
 * 17:21, 3 March 2014 – 20:15, 3 March 2014
 * 13:27, 4 March 2014 -- 19:17, 16 March 2014
 * After taking a brief look at that user's contributions, I have a hard time seeing what you are so concerned about. This user, under two accounts, has about 2000 edits going back to 2005. This is not a highly active account. But they seem to be a productive contributor. Yes, they have criticized some of your contributions. If I was you, I would ask myself, "Why are my contributions being criticized? Is there something about my contributions that provokes criticism? Do people feel that my categorization is unhelpful, and if so, why? Can I adjust my contributions in such a way that they will gain support instead of opposition? Am I here primarily to improve the encyclopedia in collaboration with others, or is my goal here to advance my own personal interests?" Answering these questions honestly may help you to have a more enjoyable editing experience.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also examined the editor's contributions (and deleted contributions). I see that only a small portion of their work is on article concerning you. I also see that a good number of the articles that editor has proposed at AfD, by whomever created, have not been deleted. But they are not so many that it amounts to a problem--the editor is not nominating article blindly or recklessly. Without judging the individual edits reverted, because I don't want to analyze the history of each article,  they're not absurd or abusive reverts. Any problems you may have with your editing or categories do not derive significantly from this editor. Nor does the editor seem to be  a problem here generally. Nor does the editor  give any indication of following you in particular. Anyone who edits other than perfectly routine articles -- anyone who does something interesting -- will inevitably have some edits reverted and some articles listed for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Global Traveler
Is this travel magazine notable? Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly doubt it, and commented at the AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines
Hello again, DGG - any comment about this? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm accepting. I can't determine notability, and in equivocal cases, the only fair way is for the community to decide.  DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Commented, suggesting that defining edit wrring by exact rules shows a desire for rule-making, rather than solving the problem.  DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Quhti Baba
i am sorry to have involved you in this issue of Qutbi Bohra article. Firstly i would just like to tell you, as you already know, that i am new here and i am not aware of the fine points of Wikipedia.

Secondly Ftutocdg has called Sam... and Dharam... as can be seen from their talk pages. To help him out delete Qutbi Bohra page. They have no interest in the content or anything else of the article. Since Sam... Is talking of my edits, i am just trying to save the article. Just see the way they have vandalised the article. I know you have less knowledge regarding the article but you atleast would know that Quran exists. Prophet Muhammed exist. It is such common and well known points that has been deleted under 'beliefs' section, religion etc. stating unsourced synthesis. alongwith that certain details of Khuzaima Qutbuddin has also been deleted. it is they who are using the policies of Wikipedia to get this article deleted and trying to rope you in too. please try to understand the situation. Which editor would put the article for deletion just to improve the article. if they want to improve the could talk on talk page but there they just justify their deletions and advice me to stay out giving reference to various policies of Wikipedia. i know i have a lot to learn but i am trying to but here they are just putting on an act to delete the article.

All this is happening because of some pov of Ftutocdg regarding Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Just see his contrib you will see nothing but addition and deletion of Khuzaima Qutbuddin or details related to Khuzaima Qutbuddin from different articles and nobody stands to stop him but here i am trying to save an article and editors have grouped together to delete it. what a effort and that too using the policies of Wikipedia. i think atleast you should try to make them see reason and make Wikipedia free from people with wrong intentions. vandals.

i am sorry this write up will go on top. that is another point i wanted to discuss. when editing fron mobile there should be some kind of way or button or link whereby one can go down and post there.

Sorry for your time and trouble. thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

response to Araz

 * The way to post at the bottom from a mobile or a slow connection is to use the "new section" tab at the top of the talk page. (it may show up as a "+" But it's my own fault I have let the page get so long, and I mean to fix it.
 * If I can get you started right I will not regret the time and trouble. Please do not use the word vandalism to mean anything else than a deliberate attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia. It's much overused, and is best kept for the most serious  bad-faith situations.  It does not apply to a good-faith disagreement on content, or whether to delete an article. We do delete articles if the basic content cannot be adequately verified by reliable sources. The repeated AfDs were not a good idea, and I have said so in the appropriate places, but they are not vandalism.
 * At present I do not think anyone actually wants to delete the article. They do want to drastically revise itThe best thing you can do is to let that happen.

Look at the ref. given by Sam just above "While people are internally calling themselves Qutbi Bohras, it is not likely that there will be an open declaration of the sect as long as there is no power balance within the community." This makes it difficult or impossible to write a full article because WP is limited by what the published sources say. Until things come out in the open, we cannot write about them.
 * In practice, when there are arguments here, the person is likely to win the argument who keeps calm the longest. Many people find it very helpful when angry, or in a difficult situation, to  wait a few hours or even overnight  and read over their post carefully and rewrite as prudence indicates before sending it. DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Jan Flawn
Hi DGG, please can you advise as to why you feel the article on Jan Flawn was promotional. It was well-referenced (with very credible objective media links) and factual, and I thought passed the notability test. I only included info that could be referenced. If this is promotional, how can it be made non-promotional, especially considering that only certain information can be credibly referenced. Thank you (Annakurijames (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC))
 * I just nominated it--another admin, and a very reliable one, agreed with me and deleted it. The article contained a very personal discussion of her motivations and her early difficulties raising money, information for which she can be the only source, and whose purpose is normally to gain sympathy. The remainder of the article is devoted not to a description of her accomplishments, but to her expounding her views,  The award is from a magazine and a lobbying association, not an official group. Her own writings, too,  are not a suitable reference.   What we need is major newspaper and magazine stories about her work: recognized professional magazines are OK, but not the sort of trade journals that mainly reprint press releases.  If you can show me some sources of that sort, I'll resore  the article to your user space so you can add them and clean up the rest.
 * one of the problems here is that even for the very best of causes, and I have good reasons to be very sympathetic to her causes and her work, we avoid promoting them, just a rigourously as we avoid commercial advertising.  DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi DGG - OK, thanks for your feedback. I think I will be able to get back to you with some better sources. Best wishes, (Annakurijames (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC))

HI DCG - Here is the link to a Financial Times article. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae112154-d507-11e2-b4d7-00144feab7de.html#axzz2wKMkAHGe - In it, it describes her difficulties in raising money, plus her experience as a entrepreneur and businesswoman. Might that be of use? Best wishes, (Annakurijames (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC))

Hi DGG - Funnily enough, another full page Financial Times article was published on Jan Flawn today - it's here - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fce7f4aa-a866-11e3-8ce1-00144feab7de.html. In it, is referenced many of the early money difficulties etc.... Hopefully this should also be an authoritative source? (Annakurijames (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC))


 * I think there is possibility for an article. But it will have to be written in neutral encyclopedic language, without praising her. It will need to focus on her career and accomplishment, not on what she has to say on various issues. (And the part about her difficultires in founding the firm is not of central interest, however documented--rather, what she did succeed in.)I think it would probably be best to start over.  DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

OK - thanks DCG - (Annakurijames (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC))

Araz5152, vandalism & ownership
Hi David. I hope this finds you well. You previously closed AfD/Qutbi Bohra and further to posts from and  on your talk page (now archived at Archive 86 Mar. 2014#Qutbi Bohra article), you made a comment on the Qutbi Bohra talk page,. Which is why I come to you with this situation: By now Araz5152 have more or less made it habit to revert claiming vandalism in eir edit summaries in articles  have created or in which ey have. Taher Saifuddin and Qutbi Bohra are the two best examples, in the former ey added ~20k text (POV and OR is pretty evident), the latter ey created. If the picture is not clear, I can go into details presenting diffs. The case looks to me like the usual misunderstood WP:OWN. Ftutocdg made a sensible post on my talk page,, asking for help with a 3O. I replied,, that I would talk to Araz5152 first, and did so. At that point I hoped for some kind of dialogue, or at least a reply of some sort. It did not happen. Araz5152 went on to in Qutbi Bohra. The rethorics in the ES is upped a bit "revert vandalism. sycronised vandalism, deliberate blanking, misuse of Wikipedia policies". Before taking this to AN/I I thought you might want to swing your gentle, magic wand here. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 17:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * consider whether it is possible that the person misbehaving may not be in the wrong about the issue involved. WP does not handle such situations well. In my opinion using AN/I to settle disputes about content by converting them into disputes about behavior is the reason I avoid ANI.  I think it absurd for an encyclopedia not to put more emphasis on determining the actual truth as supported by the sources.  I understand why our tradition prevents relying upon expert opinion, but I nonetheless think it a major limitation on our reliability and usefulness.
 * Given this limitation of WP, my own view on how to handle content disputes is for some uninvolved party to find a neutral version (in this case, one expressing both views and making it clear they contradict each other) and for us then to give a no-fault topic ban against all parties with an strong opinion, or if necessary all previous contributors. This seems to me the only fair alternative to actually using expert opinion. If I did have a magic wand, I would use it in the traditional manner of magic wands, by making the contending parties disappear from the area.
 * But I cannot do this. Arb com made a tentative move in this direction, to the anger of many of the most active people here, who are apparently dedicated to an environment fostering active and perpetual argument. Every candidate to ArbCom in the last election was asked about this, and they either  opposed such bans or evaded the issue. Therefore, there is nothing useful I can do, except to regret once more that I let myself get even slightly involved in a content dispute.  DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My question was not, and I am sorry if that was unclear, one regarding contents, but whether you had an opinion on how to handle a situation with a user, who does not reply to messages, but keeps reverting believing other users' edits to his text constitute vandalism. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 21:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I went on about one of my pet causes. I think both sides are mainly intent in getting their own view of the situation in a case of disputed facts, and in such a situation I am not comfortable with just blocking one of them. I see the article is back at AfD for the third time I regard this and the earlier AfDs as an attempt to delete the article on the other side of a religious dispute, and that greatly affect my view of the parties. However,  another editor on the same side  while still protesting the subject doesn't exist and that those who claim they are in this group must be wrong as its non-existent,  has made a useful suggestion at the AfD 3.   In some cases of this sort, if I know enough I will sometimes edit the article to a stub as a starting point, (which gives the dilemma that someone else has to protect it) but  I have too little confidence in this area.  DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Skr15081997 (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that this keeps revolving around Qutbi Bohra. Was it something I said?

OK, Qutbi Bohra then. I suggested during the second AfD discussion,, where I !voted delete, that the article, if the outcome was keep, be reduced to a stub based on the few sources that directly support the subject. People can build from there per BURDEN. And having myself spend an evening reading all listed sources I can say that the current article is an elaborate piece of SYNTH.

In regards to you being puzzled (and I don't blame you), one of the sources gives the answer: "While people are internally calling themselves Qutbi Bohras, it is not likely that there will be an open declaration of the sect as long as there is no power balance within the community."

I did not come here in search of a block for anybody, David, I am sorry if anything I wrote could be understood that way. I came here only to get your advice on how to make a new user, Araz5152, listen up a bit and collaborate. I am by no means the only one who have tried, springs to mind as another editor, whom Araz5152 has ignored and kept reverting under his misunderstood "reverting vandalism" edit summary. My message to Araz is as kind and understanding as I know how to put it. And my question is: what if anything can be done to WP:WER in such a case? Or what should be done in such a case? Best, Sam Sailor Sing 00:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * naturally, the first question about editor retention is whether the editor can or should be retained. The usual course is to look at their other articles. In this case, they indicate a potentially useful concentration upon areas where we are weak, but also indicate a considerable misunderstanding of NPOV. The current WT:Articles for creation/Saudi Arabia al-baqi shows this to even greater degree, and in a considerably more negative way. We hope  that the editor will come to understand our policies, but a lesser but still acceptable possibility is that, while not understanding, they will come to accept that other people will edit their work to have it meet our standards, and not resist this. Should neither of these happen, the gain from their  work will be much overbalanced by the difficulty in dealing with them; sometimes they can be persuaded to leave, or will leave usually in considerable anger because they see they will not accomplish their goal, but sometimes we do have to block.Blocking involves prediction: we block to prevent anticipated damage. I doubt anyone would claim that the people here, even the admins,  are as a class particular skilled at human relations,  and we are no better in predicting future behavior than at teaching others to modify their behavior. (Thus our use of a block for a short time, both to give people a chance to prove that we misjudged them, and  to see if making clear our determination to remove the uncooperative will have any effect.)


 * I am not really any better than others at judging: I have a tendency to naïvely extend my sympathy, and have repeatedly been fooled. On occasion, I have in the opposite direction been known to conclude over-hastily that someone has improper motives. On very rare occasions, though, my language and manner seems to be enough different to have a positive effect, and I cannot really refuse to give it a try. I do two things: first, I make it clear as a probe that I recognize what is going on, and give an example of how things can be done better, as I have just a few minutes ago done with some edits to the articles he has been working on. Then I try to explain without anger that right or wrong, his current course is hopeless, as I am about to do. (If I get a bad response from these, I can sometimes follow up with a block, and being able to say that I am willing to has sometimes had an effect--more often in stopping than in reforming, but that's something-- but I am already too involved to do that here.)  I try to avoid confrontation, and avoid being negative, or formal. If I am met with a hostile response, I just go away and do what has become evidently necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 12:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Carbone Smolan Agency
I am posting this reply to your reply concerning an article that was deleted. Can you tell me where I can find a copy of the deleted article so I can paste it back into the Articles for Creation section in order to begging making changes? I have the original text, but I do not wish to lose the citation formatting. It took so long to create.

Here is the reply I tried to post to your talk page but it may have ended up on APERSON's talk page:

Thank You First, let me thank you for your response. I appreciate your willingness to help me reshape this article. I respect you all for providing this public service. I welcome your help in getting this draft in acceptable shape so that it may be published one day soon. I did not realize that I needed to check in to see the status of the article after APERSON approved it for posting on January 7. I know better now. Let me get back to work on improving this article so it may be published on WIKI.

Why I Drafted the Article Few American graphic design/branding studios survive as long as CSA has. When their 35th anniversary book was published in 2012, I reviewed their book in Communication Arts (I am paid by CA, of course). Other design agencies with which I am familiar (but not personally or professionally connected) have asked me if I could author a WIKI article but, until CSA asked for my help, I had never attempted it. As a long-time contributor to Communication Arts Magazine, I have had the occasion to meet many creative professionals, Ken Carbone among them. Their 35+ year run sets them apart from most. Over the decades they have created some of the most memorable identities and way-finding systems for some of the most respected and visited cultural institutions in the world (more interesting to me than their work for big Fortune 500 companies, but that is my prejudice). I regard them as among the top-ranked communication arts/design agencies in the US. For that reason, I decided to try to place an article about them.

Highest Honor in American Design Since I submitted the article back in December 2013, CSA was selected for the highest honor of our profession…. The AIGA Medal. Only the best of the best are chosen to be an AIGA Medalist. People like Paul Rand, Saul Bass, Ivan Chermayeff, etc. As a journalist who has had the honor to cover creative professionals for many years, CSA, I felt, "deserved" to have a WIKI page.

Citing Peers and Third-Party Publications When writing the story, I reviewed ten or more existing WIKI articles about their peers (Steven Heller, Stefan Sagmeister, Massimo Vignelli, Pentagram) and sought to emulate the key subject headings (History, Education, Current, Clients) and then researched every notable mention in third-party sources that spoke to their history and excellence. One source is the AIGA archives which help establish their notability and presence among the leading design agencies in the US. The Dialog book was one my principal resources, but I did cite others, including FastCompany, Business News, Communication Arts, and other design industry online publications/sources such as Design Matter, Felt+Wire, AIGA's website, that cover notable designers. Perhaps I offered too many. The "name-dropping" suggestion by your earlier is one I can understand upon further reflection. To help establish how "important" they are, I quote other notable designers like Massimo Vignelli who are on WIKI and who have something to say about CSA. I am not averse to deleting any or all of them from the article.

Citing "Dialog" Book One point you made in your earlier comment was that I drew from their archive — that was not wholly accurate. I did quote from the book celebrating they 35th anniversary. This is nettlesome because the book, while not self-published, obviously involved their participation. I strived not to use adjectives and adverbs celebrating their accomplishments contained in the book but rather used only historical information from it (e.g. their selection in1986 as the signage/wayfinding designers for the Louvre which catapulted them to national acclaim). I can cull that article of direct quotes from the two principals and minimized the use of reference to that book about the company. It will diminish the historical context but I am more than willing to do what I can to get the article in acceptable shape to publish. Please advise me on whether or not I can quote them from that book (which I reference about 8 times but can minimize) or if I can interview them directly and quote from my own interview with them.

Conflict of Interest To clarify a few things for the WIKI editorial review team: I am not personal friends with the subject (Ken Carbone and his partner Leslie Smolan) nor have I ever worked for them for hire. I repeat, I have not and will not accept financial renumeration from them. I know that is ethically out of bounds and I would like to feel that I can write other articles about other leading designers and studios in the future that are not compromised by conflict of interest. Right now, my interest in work with you, DGG, on getting that article revised so that you and your editor peers will accept it. This is a learning process for me. And it has been quite an education. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porterwritewiki (talk • contribs) 15:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have moved the deleted version to User:Porterwritewiki/Carbone Smolan Agency for improvement. I've moved it there to avoid confusion with earlier versions elsewhere. It cannot stay there long. I'll make some additional suggestions on your user talk page in a few hours.  DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just letting you know, your decline to restore at WP:REFUND was restored by the admin who deleted it, and another admin nominated the article for deletion at AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for letting me know. I commented.  DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC/Professor Nathalie Martin Comment
Why did you submit the article again after that 1 small edit was made on the article between then and when User:FoCuSandLeArN declined it? It didn't address the decline rationale. —Mysterytrey 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You pop up quite often on my watchlist, too. 01:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * because I am in the process of rewriting a small amount of possibly copyvio material, and adding details of her books, and I then intend to accept the article. Since she meets the standard of WP:PROF Criterion 5, there is a very great likelihood that it will pass AfD, & this is a type of article I'm rather familiar with.
 * when I come upon an article I intend to fix and improve, if I'm sure I can get to it immediately, I sometimes accept and then rewrite--but I only do that if I can do the editing immediate. In this case, I wasn't quite sure, so I did my alternatively technique,  submit and  then rewrite; In this case there was indeed a some things yesterday in my life and I didn't get to it; I may not today either, but I certainly expect to by Tuesday. (possibly in cases like this I should submit, mark as reviewing, and then rewrite.), Frankly, I only bother with the whole AfC overhead in order to order not to disrupt whatever stats & categories the system produces; otherwise, I would just move to mainspace  and then edit out all the AfC-specific stuff, or edit and then move.
 * BTW, as for the earlier decline, I intend to follow up on that because I think the reason was wrong.  DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Energetically modified cement
I was quite happy to see your comments on talk page for the above-mentioned article, as we could certainly use the perspective of someone who has been around for a bit more of the article's history and previous content and deletion discussions. I've spent several hours today already going through the many sources on that page, trying to determine which, if any, are truly secondary sources, whether they are appropriate for use on Wikipedia, whether they support the claims being made, whether they are in fact third-party sources independent of the product's promoters, and so-forth. What a mess. While this is going to require a point-by-point accounting for each claim and source (since the combative IP in question -- Let's call him "Not-Karl" for convenience -- cannot be counted on to self-regulate), one thing I am sure of is that the NPOV (specifically promotional) issues are significant here (and probably do go back to COI, despite Not-Karl's claims) and that the article has very little informative/encyclopedic value at present. All of that said, I don't know that deletion is really the way forward here; the material has been around for some time and seen wide usage, so I can't help but feel that the subject can be rescued, if only we can get the right editors working on it. In any event, from a policy perspective, I don't think we can push for deletion until such time as all of the sources have been proven as unsuitable for establishing notability -- though, this may very well end up being the case. Yes, it's certainly a massive hurdle that the main editors (or perhaps just one editor sockpuppeting) pushing POV on the article cannot be made to understand or work within the constraints of policy, but to my mind the solution is to remove them from the equation and try to rescue the material ourselves. If the IP's combative attitude, disregard for policy and process, and violations of WP:Civility continue unabated, I'll simply kick the matter back to ANI in short order and hope the responding admin sees the need for a topic ban. I think we might also consider requesting a check-user on him, since I see more than a little commonality between him, regarding his aims, attitude, personalized attacks, and short-fuse, and the article's creator (User:Jono2013). If he is sockpuppeting, then he needs to be banned immediately. In the meantime, I'm going to try to attract other editors from related engineering, construction, and materials science articles so we can more accurately parse the claims and sources involved. My first stop was going to be WP:WikiProject Civil engineering, but TRPoD got there ahead of me. Snow (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, even as I was typing the above to you, another editor was noting on the talk page that an SPI from May of 2013 already established that they are the same person (or meat-puppeting at the least).  Yeah, this guy has got to go before we're going to make any headway in determining what to do with the article.  I'll inform ANI.  Snow (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , if you can fix it, or get others to help you do so, I agree completely that it would be very much better--it's obviously a notable topic. WP:TNTis the essay explaining the general idea that in some cases it's better to start over, but normally that's only necessary when the entire thing is riddled with promotionalism or a promotional editor cannot be effectively removed-. Unfortunately, deletion is the one reliable process we have--the removal of persistent promotional editors is much more difficult. And sometimes an AfD is the only way that will force improvement. That's not supposed to be the purpose of AfD, but it often works. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hard to disagree that the article is essentially going to need to be scrapped and reconstructed from the ground up, regardless of whether there is an AfD, and I certainly am not eager to embark on that process, at least not until the more immediate issue is resolved.  I guess we'll just have to see how the ANI plays out and who, in terms of neutral and knowledgeable editors, we can attract to the article, before we discuss its ultimate future.  Snow (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Commented at the discussion, but feel any advice will fall on deaf ears. Best,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Michael and to you too DGG for your input there. However, I too have a strong feeling it will fall on deaf ears. I'm also rather concerned about that draft in general. After reading it closely, I removed this on BLP grounds. Note that it is referenced to a YouTube video which is simply a recording on a private answering machine. Another of the "references", i.e. this one, is highly inappropriate from a BLP point of view. I'm not sure we should even be linking to it. That combined with the text of the draft suggests that the proposed Wikipedia article is being used as part of the various internet forum battles the subject is involved in. By the way, although AfC drafts aren't indexed by Google, they are picked up by mirrors. See . Best Voceditenore (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, on thinking about it, I decided to bring the issue to Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey Beall
David, can you have a look at this edit, please? Specifically, is "Cites & Insights" an RS? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cites and Insights is basically Crawford's blog in journal format. Crawford is the most respected of all bloggers in the library profession, just as Garfield is in information science. Esposito, on the other hand, is usually regard as a maverick. I restored the text and adjust the wording.  FWIW, I am not a personal friend of either of them,     DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion, if you don't mind
Hi, since Guy pointed me to you to look at what to do as for as being an admin goes, what do you think is important for wannabe admins to be associated with, what kind of experience is important, what kind of edits are key to be familiar with, etc. Thanks LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The actual necessary factor is to do the sort of work that requires judgment, knowledge of WP rules, and the ability to interact with newcomers. This is best acquired by the quasi-admministrative tasks such as deletion process, anti-vandalism, and so forth. This should include participation in some of the relevant policy talk pages and noticeboards, to demonstrate understanding of why we have the rules.  It isn't just a matter of doing the work and learning the rules, but having enough of a record in applying them to enable people to judge. Significant article work is very helpful in getting first hand experience with the problems editors have, and knowing what in practice makes a decent article; in my view it shouldn't be absolutely essential, but many other people insist on it.
 * (I myself am most likely to comment on deletions because that's the process I have most experience with; this does not mean I think it's the only important factor or the most important, just that when other issues are the critical ones I am less likely to comment in an RfA.)
 * The reason RfA can appear hostile is that we are basically looking for mistakes, either in the work or the responses at the RfA. All admins make a few errors if they do anything interesting, but to be careless when you know everyone is looking at you is not promising. It will sometimes happen that a single unfortunate answer can unfairly hurt a candidacy; the solution is to withdraw and come back in 6 months. That it's an RfA2 or 3 does not harm the candidate--it in fact gives an opportunity to see if they've improved in the interval.  DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Ansalem
You recently (somewhat rudely, to my ears) commented, "when there's an article in the subject's native encyclopedia, it's worth checking there before prodding". As you might notice, and as I checked, there is no article at fr:Bernard Ansalem. Likewise, my search for "Bernard Ansalem" turned up only a passing mention in fr:Naman Keïta. There is, however, an article at fr:Bernard Amsalem. I have accordingly moved the English article to what, I presume, is the correct spelling. Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * so that was the sequence--I had some trouble figuring it out. But why did you nominate for prod instead of checking for refs? I'm sorry if I sounded & still sound) a little sharp--I'm simultaneously dealing with several such article, 1 Fr, 1 It, 1 Cz -- not that I can read Czech, but I was still able to copy the refs.)  DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did check for references, first at French-language Wikipedia, then with an outside tool I found there that checks Wikipedia in (all? many?) languages, and finally at Google News. Since I had the spelling with an $\langlen\rangle$, however, I found nothing. I find, by the way, that it is generally better to attribute error to ignorance than to bad faith. Cnilep (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, bad faith means a lot more than that -- it means deliberately damaging the encyclopedia, and I've never said you even damaged it at all.   I've made many errors of this sort, and I always appreciate when people tell me, even if they do it with a templated notice. (I generally hope my errors are carelessness, not ignorance, but I;ve done both). The actual fault is of course with the person who submitted the article--and the failure of people to put in the references when they do a rough translation is very annoying. What I posted on your p. was just a copy of what I did on his, and it was mainly as a notice. If it rubbed off on you I apologize   DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Article Keygen, edit warring
Dear DGG, I am having trouble with User talk:81.207.42.63 who keeps reverting all changes and improvements to the article keygen, which has been mostly unreferenced incoherent material for years. The user has now reverted my improvement three times without engaging in a discussion on the talk pages, despite my invitation. Appreciate any intervention that may be needed. I have placed a 3R warning on the user's talk page. Thanks, Kbrose (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I found he state of the article as the ip editor had left it to be extremely confusing. I reverted to your latest version, but as an editor not an admin. (I can obviously no longer take admin actions relating to this article). You might consider whether any of the material from the other version could possibly be used--I think it might help resolve the problem.  DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I had used as much as was usable from that version. The IP editor apparently refused any improvements over their version, even simply deleted my comments and warning from hist talk page. Kbrose (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Aligarh Muslim University
I reverted, thinking it was a simple CSD A1 job, but as it reloaded the page it said that it was deleted. When I saw you were mid-deletion/restoration I decided to call it a night and signed off as well. I'll give it a thorough look at about 4pm UTC today. James086 Talk 10:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's now copyvio free. A curiosity I've noticed is that the AMU history web page uses links to Wikipedia articles as the article did. It might have been copied from Wikipedia (making it an unreliable source) although it is unattributed. Some of the content in the article is more than a decade old so it's possibly older than the AMU webpage. I'm going on holiday tomorrow for a week but when I return I'll add more content to the article as it is sorely lacking now. James086 Talk  20:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell who copied whom. As far as I know the material is reasonably accurate though considerably ideological--and quite incomplete for the later period, making it  only a very rough paraphrase, to the extent that none of it would be copyvio (It's a little difficult to change the series of ideas in a chronological history),  but it wouldn't solve the problem of citing. Routine facts about the history of a university can be taken from their web site, but this is overly interpretive. I took a few dates from there, but one of the dates was hard to interpret and I'd need to check with other sources.  The problem extends to other articles--those about the founder and related entities. They all share the same text. This is a research project, and I do not really have the time for it  What I can do , and routinely do for universities, is to expand the academic courses section a little. I'll wait for you , though. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ryde Lifeboat Station
Keep Why do you think that this Independent Rescue Organisation is any less notable than many of the other articles on the encyclopaedia that already exist? Examples such as: Gosport Lifeboat Station, Mundesley Lifeboat Station, This article is in the early stages of development and should be kept until it has been fully developed. Cheeseladder (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of them notable, unless there is something special.  Since you say you are working on it, I won't nominate the AfD  for a month at least so you have a chance to show it.
 * The consensus may or may not support me, and whatever they decide, they decide; the only way to find out what the community thinks is to ask them by bringing a test case. If my view is not supported, the arguments might convince me, or else I usually decide to let the matter rest indefinitely, but sometimes I might possibly decide to  have it looked  at again in 3 or 4 years. And sometimes a balance is reached between what will be and what will not be deleted.  But I never repeat a nomination in quick sequence until chance favors me. The way I do these probes  is to nominate an average one and see what happens. I don't think it fair to   do them as a group, nor  to nominate a large number in the hope of getting one deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello again DGG


 * Look! lets not mess around here. Notability is only your opinion. One that may or may not be right. But slapping a possible deletion tag on the page is an easy option for you. I suggest that if you are convinced of your opinion you go straight to AfD stage now. I am working on other articles and it is unlikely that I will be contributing to the article within your! month deadline/threat you seem to think you have the right to imposes on this article. That in itself shows little WP:AGF and is a bad tone in which to exchange with a fellow editor. At least with an Afd, the community gets to decide the notability. In Good faith, Allways! Cheeseladder (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * absolutely you are perfectly in the right to remove a PROD tag--that's what you are supposed to do if you disagree, and I do not expect anyone who really disagrees about a subject to change their mind just on my say-so.  That's just an appropriate first step to gauge whether there are any objections.  As there are, I will  have to make  a choice between going to AfD or not bothering with the issue for the time being.  I would always rather have strong articles than delete weak ones, in any subject.   DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted content
For future reference, I entirely trust your judgement and instincts, you can reverse any admin action I have taken, just drop a courtesy note on my talk page so I don't get confused by finding it undone. Your record on deletion and inclusion is much better than mine, and unlike me you are not a nasty suspicious bastard. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)