User talk:DGG/Archive 89 Jun. 2014

email notification
Hello DGG - long time no "see". I just found the following on my email, but I am at a loss what triggered it? Could you help? Taa
 * Dear Pronacampo9,
 * The Wikipedia page User:DGG has been changed on 31 May 2014 by DGG, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG for the current revision. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DGG&diff=next&oldid=605787288 to view this change.(Pronacampo9 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)}
 * something odd seems to have happened. I don't know the significance. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, out of the blue, then. Literally, because my username was different the last time we communicated. Never mind. Nice meeting you again though. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

Michael J. Kuhar
Hi, I had been communicating with the subject of this article on OTRS before you accepted it and moved it from AFC to Michael J. Kuhar. He just wrote to me expressing surprise that the article is now in main space.

I was wondering, on what basis did you accept this? It's basically an unsourced bio article. Every single source listed is something the subject himself published. The article lists zero independent coverage by reliable sources as required by WP:BLP. Therefore, it seemed quite unready for publication in main article space.

I'm curious about your rationale, and also whether you agree it might be a good idea to move back to AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems to easily pass WP:PROF. I've fixed a couple typos, added a couple facts and sources.  It needs work, but I don't think notability is at issue here.  BLP does require facts are verifiable, and that contentious facts are verified, but anything contentious without a cite can just be removed. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  15:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Candler Professor of Neuropharmacology" passes WP:PROF, and all that is necessary is for it to be proven,and the university web site is enough to prove it.I accepted it on that basis, assuming, correctly, that the rest of the sourcing could easily be added from the sources given. They're apparently uncontroversial plain facts, and the sources are good enough for plain facts even in a BLP. Further, I see no reason why the subject might want this removed, and he is in fact so distinguished that I would not apply the optional clause of BLP.  One possible factor might be the desire of those working at a   center doing the research he does to mask their identity, and I accordingly edited the lede slightly.   The family sentence is uncited,  and tho it  will probably be in a who's who or other directory, which is good enough for that detail, it's personal so I removed it. The awards are surely in his cv, a sufficient source, which is probably on line and needs to be found, but is trivial. I also did some copy editing--the writing was a little promotional.  Parts of his career are very public, and if he wanted to obscure his identity he wouldn't do that. (But if there is some other factor I do not understand, please communicate with me off wiki--I'm also an OTRS volunteer.  DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

SightLife
While I agree that awards for "best companies to work for" are not the type of thing that I would normally think about putting in a Wikipedia article, having that kind of baggage doesn't make an article's topic non-notable. Given that a reliable independent source lists SightLife as becoming the leading US eye-bank in 2009, you might want to reconsider Articles for deletion/SightLife. --Bejnar (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * of course it implies nothing about notability one way or another; it does however imply something about promotionalism.  Incidentally, what has been the status since 2009?   DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know, a four page case study by an independent researcher, a lawyer, published by a reliable publisher (Wiley) should add some weight to significant coverage. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the research, Norton focused on the global aspects of SightLife and not on the US market for their traditional services, so I don't know what has happened since in the US. But according to Non-Profit Times their number of employees went from 80 in 2012, to 92 in 2013, to 107 in 2014. So they seem to be growing. --Bejnar (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/RedHack
I know you have taken an interest in the activities of User:Mr. Guye. I have tried to make meaningful contact several times with this user. But he just gets more experience using tools without developing judgment. Could you take a look at RedHack, the AfD at Articles for deletion/RedHack, and the response to a plea from the article creator at User Talk:Mr. Guye? I know this is a strange article, but... - Neonorange (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I commented at the AfD .  DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Wink
Hi, I've added more information about the request deletion at Talk:Wink_Technologies. I believe it will address your concerns. Namely, the references that seemed to indicate notability do not support the content in the article. What prompted the deletion request was the reference in the "Significance" section - it does not even mention Wink. As I removed the reference and started to rework the section, I realized there wasn't a good replacement to demonstrate any significance at all.

I'd be happy to just fix the problems and update the article as I had originally planned. I just didn't want to go through the effort only for somebody to say "Hey, that doesn't look very notable anymore!" Please let me know how to proceed. Thanks, Wieldthespade (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Your input at the Michael Wines section of WP:BLPN would be appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

G13 notices

 * Holy cow! I'm not sure which of the Bot-Gods you ticked off, or how you did it. But appropriate penance should be done and quickly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I find this not much of a problem--I'm glad for the notices. I check & remove them up every day or two, postponing many, fixing a few, and leaving some for deletion. The alternative at this point is to let everything get deleted regardless of merit. The longer-range solution is to develop a much simpler and better way of dealing with AfCs. I think it will be necessary to discard the  entire existing system, and use the introduction of draft space as an opportunity to find an alternative. The sooner the better, but experience here tells me not to hope for that. WP NOT AGILE.   DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oren Laurent
Tried to request for undeletion but that was the wrong page. Could you undelete (and protect if necessary) solely for the purpose of redirecting to the subject's company, Banc De Binary, and of having the article and talk history available? I know this would be a controversial request if I were someone badly behaved, but I'm trying to keep up with all the rules. I emailed BDB and got a reply back and so have been describing myself as "possible COI" but I don't know that that helps any given the history described by Tokyo girl 79 about this request. I don't know that DRV would overturn a result simply for redirect and history. Okteriel (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If not, please say no, so I can decide where to turn. I suspect the article and talk histories will have data useful to improving the BDB article, as Black Kite has asked us. Okteriel (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I found a user that may be a sockpuppet
Yesterday, when I was using WP:Page curation, I noticed that a user was creating copy pages of Boxing. This user had made at least 7 copy pages and a promotional user page before they were blocked. This user called itself "Avakmanaserian1". Now today, I see a "different" user with a name of"Avak boxing" and is using their userpage to write about their boxing career. I find this highly suspicious, especially since both accounts associate themselves with Canadian boxing. Can you organize a sockpuppet test or something? --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Looking at deleted contributions, it is obviously the same person.  I've already done the blocks and tags. In the future, Twinkle has build it sock reporting with the ARV tab.  It will send a report to WP:SPI for you. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I I do not try to participate personally in every possible function here, and SPI is one that I leave to others.  DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

An AfD of possible interest
I have nominated Banc De Binary for a third deletion discussion, but because the article itself is fully-protected, I was unable to put the tag on it and I was hoping you might as a janitorial issue be able to put it on.

As a caution, the AfD will likely result in accusations of censorship and non-disclosed paid editing, since User:Bilby identified a post that claims to be offering a five-digit reward for an editor that can return the page to its prior (presumably promotional) state. I have no involvement in this, but I actively chose not to mention it in the AfD in order to avoid giving participants bright ideas. CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I se it has already been nominated (by Bilby),.  DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Coolio. I have also asked the admin adding protection to un-protect it so I can start cleaning out the junk sources like Investopedia. CorporateM (Talk) 14:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 6, April-May 2014 by ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 4
 * New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
 * TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
 * TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
 * New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Democracy & Nature
Dear David, I have been looking at the listings in WorldCat. Some are apparently wrong (if you click on the library link, you get a "not found", which is confirmed by searching directly in that library's catalog). Most seem to be links to EBSCOHost. In essence, most libraries only list this title because they have access through EBSCOHost. Normally, we don't accept listings in this database to meet NJournals, because it is not selective enough. So using WorldCat seems in this case to be an indirect way of circumventing that. Could you comment on this? --Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I should have checked. This sort of result has happened before, and I should have remembered. Many libraries do list everything in every journal collection they buy; I have never consideredthis a good idea, and my own library did not do it--we add the titles from the list the bibliographers choose to add. The list of  subscriptions that held the print also is   here, = 74. The situation is not helped by the difficulty in using  of   clearly differentiating between the electronic and the print versions--many libraries will add their listing to whichever record, considering the distinction a mere holdings detail. I commented at the   (the diagnostic is whether the list contains libraries one would not expect to have it, and lacks those that one would)   DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Advice needed please
Hi DGG, I'm after your opinion on an AfC submission that has come to my attention. The submission is User:AndrewCharalambous/sandbox. Based on this it seems to be an autobiography. It obviously needs a complete re-write, but I specifically wanted to ask your opinion on his notability? He has been the subject of a fair bit of attention in the British media; they have even dubbed him 'Dr Earth', probably for unkind reasons. So, he appears to meet the GNG/BASIC, but he does not appear to be notable as a businessman, politician, lawyer, philanthropist or any of the other hundreds of things he seems to have turned his hand to. I am also concerned that the article could become a BLP nightmare due to some of his 'walter mitty-ish' accolades. Have you any suggestions on what approach I can take with this one? Bellerophon talk to me 18:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The approach I take is to try to remove the minor material, and see what's left. Notability is uncertain, but there's at least an even chance it might pass AfD if rewritten properly, so we shouldn't hold it back, I try to resist the temptation   with   COI bios to let them just go in with the current content and therefore likely get deleted.  My impression of UK politics is that he may well become an MP, in which case he will be notable. Remind the author that the Mirror is not reliable for BLP, and neither is his own web site. If the bio is noticed, there will likely be some POV edit warring,  DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a go at rewriting it and filter through the sources and see what's left. Bellerophon talk to me 18:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Need help to move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tarbat House into article space
Hi DGG, I saw the notice above that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tarbat House was eligible for G13 deletion. I've expanded and referenced it. However I can't move it over the redirect page. It's already got three incoming links which refer specifically to this house. The current redirect is to a Castle which once stood on the same site. Could you please do that for me. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, needs categories. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Yngvadottir! I've added the cats and other gew-gaws. I find it very frustrating that as a non-admin (but autoconfirmed etc.), I can easily move existing articles over redirects if they have only one line in the history which simply created the redirect, e.g. . But I can't move accepted articles out of Draft or Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation space over such redirects. I wonder what the rationale is. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by deletion tagging
Let me know if I should just give up. Drive-by tagging from Mr. Guye continues and still doesn't show much judgement. Any new article, started in good faith, especially by a first-time user, deserves a note on how to improve the article before tagging for speedy (in my opinion.) Drive-by tagging and deletion just happened on an article about Andrew Maloney, for six years United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (serving during the Central Park jogger case). The article was evidently created by his son, a user with 2 Wikipedia edits. I'd think notability is there; but not enough sources brought up by a quick google, though a quick NYT archive search should turn up lots. I'm not interested in the subject, but I do believe Wikipedia suffers by this disruption. If you could try an intervention, I can try to get material together for an article, sort of to pay my keep (and justify my new access to HighBeam and Questia.) - Neonorange (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with a speedy that should not have been deleted is primarily with the admin who deleted it. In this particular case, the article was so badly formatted that indeed it did look like nonsense, and that was the reason given by the admin.
 * Do not give up. The best answer to deletionists is to write good articles;if they nonetheless try to delete them, they end up looking foolish.  There is certainly potential for an article here.
 * I'll take a look and and see what Mr.G has been doing.  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will try to come up with a decent article; nearly 4,000 hits in NYT archives, beginning with "NEW YORK AT WORK; Facing Gotti, A Prosecutor Hard on Mob".
 * Could you 'userfiy' the content of the deleted 'Andrew Maloney' article and place it at User Talk:Duke Maloney? It could be a help in constructing a new article. Thanks. - Neonorange (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

'''I moved the draft to User:Duke Maloney/Andrew Maloney, which is where we normally would put it,  at your request. (I first reformatted it to make the text visible) Please be aware that any part of it copied from an outside source is copyright to them, and must be removed.''' Everything considered, when you have it ready, let me know, & let me be the one to move it back to mainspace.  DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate your hard work. I am amazed at your patience. I will keep you informed, and reserve the right you request. I set ten days as a goal for something at least start class. - Neonorange (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I note that Mr. Guye's takeaway from your advice was to edit Criteria for speedy deletion.

Comment placement
Nice comment, but I think you should move it to the last section, where I have also pointed his PRODing of articles. I guess it will be easier for the editor to read. Thanks  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind because I have moved my comment up there. Cheers.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Mr. Guye
Hi. I got an edit conflict just now when leaving a comment on the above user's page; I'm glad it was you, as I was about to bring you into the conversation! Thank you for the guidance you have given to User:Mr. Guye. I hope he takes it! RomanSpa (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already encouraged the creator of the deleted page on Andrew Maloney (who may have a conflict of interest) and another editor who has taken an interest in this case (User:Neonorange) to keep me in the loop as the page is re-created. I'll review it carefully for potential bias, and will filter out any COI issues. RomanSpa (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

NYPL infobox
Friendly reminder, when you have a moment to get to it. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * done DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr Wei
Did you notice the threatening message that was placed on your user page and then removed? Let me know if you get any more so I can block the offender. Deb (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

, one is enough, considering also the nature of his editing - no reason to wait}}.  DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I was wondering if you took it seriously or just preferred to laugh it off. Deb (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Curiously, I can't even find the edit among the 100s of Hasteurbot notifications. Could you email the link to me, or the contents if it was somehow removed? I just blocked   two other accounts used, so I'm not even sure which of the editor names it is. Everything considered, I think blocking them all is what's needed.    Perhaps my G11 would have been a simpler solution after all.   DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, it was this edit by Cashfranklingroup (which he then self-reverted). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PS Cash Franklin Group is the registrant of benjaminwey.net. See Whois. The web page is quite bizarre, although probably not intentionally so. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ah. I was looking just at my talk p.   I already blocked that username for nonconstructive BLP editing. I see  that   Cashfranklin on Twitter gives the page of someone who calls themselves an "Internet Marketer;Freelance Writer"  The question is what we should do about the ed. who started the article. I think a spi might be called for, if someone wants to do the work.   DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the threat message also. I went to the article, checked the diffs. When I came back to your talk page I could not find the post here or the in the edit history; didn't think about the userpage.  - Neonorange (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry you got this kind of personalized hostility, DGG. I appreciate the work you do here. Very much.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your comment about copy/paste
Hello, thank you very much for contacting me directly about your concerns about the Curlin and Hargreave articles. I would be very happy to correct those places in the article that you feel I had simply copy/pasted. Those articles were written with, I thought, many different resources in mind - and I appreciate your care and attention to them. Can you please send to me the details of your concerns? Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have stated: "For Curlin, the entire article is directly copied with the change of a few minor words from the sources listed." This is astonishing! I'm looking at the report and for the most part it has found matched items that are simply factual, e.g., names or events. Certainly you've overstated your case here? Let me take a closer look tonight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph.hollingsworth (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have asked if I agree with you that there are certain phrases that are "not appropriate in an encyclopedia." You give two examples from different articles, so I'll start with the first one, i.e., "amongst her most notable victories" - when I searched through Wikipedia for this same phrase without using gender specification, I find it is used in 2,698 articles - and in the first 50 that showed in the list of these articles they are all about men. Surely we can use this phrase in an article about a woman? Your second example is "She was a successful leader in the movement." Again I am finding many similar phrases in existing Wikipedia articles - 20,269 articles where these kinds of modifier words are used to describe "successful businessmen," activists or politicians. So, I am confused as to what you want me to agree to here... Perhaps you are hoping to help me improve the articles - which I so very much hope - and please know that I am very willing to work to improve the articles. Or, given the language in one of your messages on my talk page, you are building a case against me personally as a Wikipedia editor to revoke my user privileges. I hope this is not the case.Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes an evaluative phrase can be used, if it is in a direct quotation, or at least specifically sourced from a reliable third party source. It cannot be used if it your own evaluation of the person's career. It is so used in many articles,as many errors are. I generally remove it if I work on an article, but often it indicates a generally evaluative tone, as it did in your articles. Evaluation is original research. (I should mention as a past quirk, that in 2006-08 articles were sometimes deleted as speedy a7 if they did not explicitly claim the person was significant or important in the first sentence. This absurdity is long past, but many articles from that period still remain uncorrected. The current view is that the facts being reported will generally show the significance, but if they do not, authoritative outside sources are necessary.)
 * Thank you - of course, I agree. Thus, your direction on any place where you can help me to improve the article would be greatly appreciated.Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I highlighted a few particular example, chosen from the first few sentences. They are pervasive in your articles, and I rather think on the basis of many years of experience here looking at newly submitted articles, that they represent the carrying over of phrases and a style of writing from material published elsewhere, instead of rewriting the material to be encyclopedic. Rewriting does not mean merely adjusting, but rewriting from scratch--for an explanation, see WP:Close Paraphrase
 * OK - thanks, I did find a couple of examples that I've fixed (I hope to your satisfaction). I'm curious though as to why you are using the "duplication" reports as evidence of wholesale copying. They are picking up on basic facts (e.g., the name of a degree or the sequence of events listed) and names, but you are not acknowledging the fact that vast majority of these long articles are the result of a lot of work bringing forward facts from multiple sources. I thought I was citing them correctly, but I would very much appreciate making the sentences better and more readable. For example, you have in the notation about Hargreaves that my sentences often match the Washington Post article, but actually we are both relying on the same source - a published article/memoir by Dr. Hamilton. The difference is that when I used the information from the source (i.e., the name of her degrees and her academic honors listed there), I cited it.Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not using the  comparison tool--it's put there automatically a part of the template. As you say, it is not necessarily helpful. Some people do use it--the way to avoid being picked up on it as a false positive is to try to find some way of altering the standard phrases, but in some kinds of article it isn't really possible.
 * The way I work, my main concern here these days is trying to remove advertising and promotion al writing from WP, because they destroy the usefulness and reliability of an encyclopedia. I try to spot passages that do not seem to me to be natural expressions of someone writing a WP article (based upon long experience and what I hope is a skill at rapid scanning) --often they are direct copying (or copying with variations), but sometimes they are just writing in the sort of PR-influenced language one sees around the world. However common in the world, it is nonetheless unsuitable for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be plain and descriptive.
 * I always try to help any editor--even a paid promotional writer--who is willing to learn. Unlike most admins, I almost never block an editor--I will only do it when it seems necessary to stop a pattern of repeated addition of improper materials. It is rarely necessary, for most people understand my meaning: if they are good faith contributors such as you obviously are, they learn; if they are trying to do advertising, they stop.    DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are wondering about my good faith, look above, or in my archives, or here.    DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Suranga Nanayakkara
Hi DGG, would you take a look at Draft:Suranga Nanayakkara and help with with WP:PROF? All independent sources are trivial mentions, so the article doesn't meet GNG. As associate professior, this says "no notability" by PROF, but as head of Augemented Senses Group, "maybe"? What say you? Thanks! 78.26  (His Wiki's Voice) 13:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * not yet notable, h=4. Assistant professors can be notable by WP:PROF in some (relatively rare) cases, if they are widely cited, but he isn't yet. Anyone with a grant and students is in a sense head of a research group.   DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, as always!   78.26   (His Wiki's Voice) 17:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

e-flux Article Draft
Hi David, I'm wondering if you can take a look at the article User:Morelcasares/e-flux draft 2. User:Morelcasares has asked me to review this article draft, which is written for the eventual article, e-flux. My concern, beyond the biasing language which can be changed and I have commented on with her is that the article is too long and that some sections like 'publications' are a little too specific. But then, looking at some of the featured articles about magazines I wonder if it would be a problem. I'm going to be helping this user out today so let me know if you get around to looking at this. Thanks, OR drohowa (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The group is notable. their journal is in about 200 libraries which is quite a lot for this genre. See the various listings at WorldCat. their work has been widely noticed--the RSss are clearly sufficient.
 * 2) Basically I agree with your comments. As it stands, the article is too much like a press release. In general: WP is not a catalog. We do not give individual sections to minor projects, though we might list the projects, one sentence each.  We do not include sections on  individual issues of a journal, except in very extraordinary cases (see #3, below); we generally do not list them, tho we might briefly list a few special issues that are especially important. The article needs considerable abridgment. (note also the article on Anton Vidokle, which has overlapping content. If an article is written on the project, the description of it there should be shortened. And it's possible that Andrade is herself notable also) In detail: the lede paragraph is promotional jargon. There is too much emphasis on where the material is available--that belongs on their web page. Names after the first mention use last names only. Project names in the article shouldn't link to sections of the same article, and should be in quotes or italics, not bold.  References are given to both reviews, and to their own website for each project. Only the reviews are suitable. It would help to make the sentences a little more compact (e.g. "Its program was organized around a number of public seminars, most of which are now available in their entirety in the unitednationsplaza online archive. " could be "Its program was organized around public seminars, most now available in the unitednationsplaza online archive."  Doing this, along with reducing the no. of refs. and the no. of headings will decrease the impression of undue detail that makes it look promotional.
 * 3) The magazine FAs are about famous magazines--at least the SF magazines are--these are the magazines that defined the genre. Many of the individual items mentioned are individually notable, and could easily have individual articles. Shojpo Beat, about a genre I am much less familiar with, also seems defining, and the items mentioned all are individually notable, with long detailed articles. The Guardian of Education is a magnificent example of the way to write an article about a historically very impt. magazine, and you can see who wrote it. It avoids lists, or multiple sections, or excessive references.    DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Will Interactive
Hello, I noticed that you have started AfD on this. It seems to me pure spam, no independent sources found after search. Thanks for started AfD after too many years :-). Cheers ! A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 18:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Academic - notable?
Would you take a look at James X. Zhang? It was an (evidently autobiographical) user sub-page at User:Jzhang988/James Xuejie Zhang for four years, then was erroneously moved to Wikipedia space, and I rescued it from WP:Miscellany for deletion and put it in mainspace with a basic reference. I was planning to seek your advice on notability with a view to AfD, but it has already been taken to WP:Articles for deletion/James X. Zhang. Searches are complicated by there being, it seems, more than one "Zhang JX", but this is clearly him. Please comment at the AfD if you have a view, either way; I haven't, so haven't. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I commented. Best thing to do would be to try again after another 4 years.   DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Bearian/sandbox
Notable or not? N.B.: I have a C.O.I. as his nominated executor. Bearian (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * unfortunately, very few citations, and the positions aren't major.   DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with a discussion?
Hey, I need some help with a discussion. Long story short, a few years ago the article for Mistress of Dragons was up for AfD. It ended as no consensus, but the problem was that there really weren't any sources out there to merit an individual entry. It only had a handful of trade reviews for the most part. I tried proposing a merger for the individual books to the main series article at Dragonvarld, but nobody participated. Since there was a very real lack of individual notability for the books I ended up just redirecting the pages. It's since been undone by User:Cjennmom under the argument that it was only done on my decision. (I've tagged her in this because it's only fair that she participate.) There's a discussion ongoing at Talk:Dragonvarld and I think that unless more sources exist, the best course of action here is to leave it as a series page rather than individual entries. I'm willing to unredirect if more sources are brought forward, but I had a really hard time finding the ones that I did back in 2011. I figure that bringing in a third party to help mediate would be a good idea. I'd really like to avoid opening up an AfD just to argue that the pages should all remain redirects to Dragonvarld, if at all possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you & replied there.   DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly of interest
If I remember rightly, you're at the Lincoln Center library? Would you be interested in helping us get an article on Benjamin Steinberg? He has an NYT obit (which I cannot read in full right now; I'm hoping they will let me see it in July) and a short AP obit, and according to his daughter there is oodles of material at Lincoln Center. See User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 6; Xanthomelanoussprog and I gave her some help with Symphony of the New World and that led me to the conviction that we need an article on him. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ill get to it, but it may be a week or so.  DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It can definitely wait that long :-) She mentions her intention to be at the library during a week in July. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Want to collaborate on an essay for Wikipedia space?
Spotted your remark that it took about 6 months to learn to edit here, and was inspired to start an essay, Getting through the beginning stages of editing .... Want to collaborate on making it into an essay for Wikipedia space? Djembayz (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look--- of course, i meant it takes 6 months to learn most of the aspects of not just editing, but of working here in general, including effectiveness in discussions.   DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Request unprotect, Randy Gage
Hi, I hope that this message finds you well! I note that you deleted (rightfully) the then article on Randy Gage @ 23:33 on 16 August 2011, with notes (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G11, promotional ). I have a new draft article sat here, but as you protected the page from recreation can not presently insert the new draft text. Can I please request unprotection to allow insertion of the new draft text. Thank You! Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider the present draft still essentially promotional. If you write a draft that does not rely on press releases, or accounts of his life sourced only to interviews with him where he can say whatever he pleases, and confines itself to those facts, such as the publications, that can be sourced to  references providing substantial coverage from   truly independent  clearly reliable sources, an article will be possible.   I rerecognizze your experience here, but it should be possible to write an article that will be less liable to deletion.   DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Ervene C. Bragg
I see why you reverted my review, but it was the prior person in the source whose details come from Wikipedia. This is a very newly created draft and the balance of probabilities is that the source existed way before the draft. I also reserve the right to be wrong. Fiddle  Faddle  14:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they probably all were, but I may be wrong.   DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Accepting the Gruner article
Thanks a lot for accepting this article, I really was a little bit desperate and despondent after receiving the second rejection, because I didn't really believe the article to be fundamentally defective in any way. I'm forever grateful for Your decision and that my work was not in vain. Aarp65 (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article eeets the appropriate standard, WP:PROF, because he was the rector of the Dresden University of Technology. I cannot account for why the previous reviewers didn't notice that. since it  is was right there in the lede paragraph. I given them some advice.    DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Interflora
Yeah, I concur, actually. I'd meant to get back to it and take that off, I'd just gotten busy in #wikipedia-en-help and not gotten back to it. My bad.

The article is pretty bad, but I did some Googling after NotASpy mentioned that they are actually a very well known company in the UK, and there are a lot of sources. When I get a bit I'll work on it and see if I can at least get it into somewhat reasonable shape. Revent talk  15:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, it sure is pretty bad, but I too simply recognized the tradename.   DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Ervene C. Bragg
I've deleted it as a copyvio of http://ecbragg.net/Book/about_the_author.htm. I can see nothing that says it was copied from Wikipedia, but might have missed something. His daughter says she wrote the text (and her name is on it at ecbragg.net), and she sent it to livingtemples too. I can't see the copying of text here to a website that's a memorial to ECB and to LT being done in the ten minutes or so between posting here and the first tagging. There doesn't seem to be a licensing notice on ecbragg, which means that until proved otherwise it should be regarded as copyright, IMO. Peridon (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My understanding is the G12 applies to "unambiguous" copyvios, not probable copyvios, which should instead go to Copyright problems. But I do think that would be overkill at that Draft stage, especially for an article would would in any case need considerable revision. How to deal with this is not clearly explored territory yet. so I've no objection to what you've done.  DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Oceanic H&L Company No. 1
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Oceanic H&L Company No. 1, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''It's touch and go this one, but I think the claims about its age are probably enough for A7 as a credible claim of significance. The sources might be enough to. May well fail the GNG though, so it needs to go to AfD if you don't think it's notable. .''' Thank you. Ged UK  12:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, at 1881 it is not one of the oldest volunteer fire departments., not even in Staten Island, see     They may possibly mean the oldest still volunteer active department , and they are the older of the two active ones in Staten Island, see Richmond Engine Co. 1. I suppose that as an active volunteer fire  dept in NYC of all places they might be notable-- I will admit I never imagined there would still be any.  I   have nominated fire department articles that did not get deleted, so I may be more deletionist here than the consensus. . So, ,  thanks for catching this one. I have  added the links.  DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit re MonaVie
DGG, On the MonaVie View History, your name and Zefr are indicated as the overseeing editors of requests for this Wikipedia page. Below is my edit request:

MonaVie manufactures and distributes products made from blended fruit and vegetable juice concentrates, powders and purées through a multi-level marketing (MLM) business model. The company has been the subject of several controversies, such as the health claims for its products have not been scientifically confirmed or approved by regulatory authorities,[4][5][6][7][8] and its chairman was previously involved in false health claims concerning another beverage company.[9][10][11][12] According to Forbes, its business plan resembles a pyramid scheme.[11][13]

My changes are these: I changed the second sentence to start with "The company" so that the first two sentences don't start the same. I changed "notably" to "such as the" so that it is easier to read. I added a period to make a third sentence for the second one to not be so long. My third sentence states the web source (Forbes) that called MonaVie a pyramid and the Newsweek web source calls MonaVie a scheme. I took out the last part because it is restating what a pyramid scheme and the clickable link does this.

Kindly appreciate any revision to these requests that will meet Wikipedia language standards.17:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Cib68 (talk)


 * I have made the edits; seethe article talk page for an explanation.  DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Adreno
I have a COI and I'd like to start a more formalized deletion discussion to see where consensus may be, however it feels inappropriate for me to nominate it myself? Was wondering what you think. CorporateM (Talk) 14:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * not really my field I see others have commented & I'll leave it to them.  DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)