Jump to content

User talk:DGG/Archive 132 Jan. 2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                       ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

            DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Do not add comments here; this is an archive of earlier comments


Reza Izad

[edit]

Hi, DGG. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Izad as snow delete, but you don't seem to have deleted the article. I thought that was the standard thing to do — at least, whenever I close using Twinkle, the tool both closes, deletes, and puts a note on the creator's page. Was there any special reason you didn't delete, and, well, do you think it should be deleted? The reason I ask is that Salvidrim! redirected the article to Studio71 an hour after your close (using his Salvidrim! (paid) account). I don't like that, after a snow delete finding. The alternative of redirecting wasn't even discussed in the AfD, except indeed by Salvidrim! (paid) himself. I'm considering deleting the redirect myself, per the AfD outcome, but wanted to ask your opinion first. Bishonen | talk 13:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: hey, no, I misread the timestamps. It looks like Salvidrim! actually redirected the article a few minutes before you closed. Not really better, IMO. Compare the direction in the AfD page template: ".. the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." As concerns redirecting, this is explained more fully at WP:EDITATAFD: "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice." Bishonen | talk 13:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
P.S., I just noticed the "AfD closure template bug" discussion above, but it doesn't altogether take care of my concerns. Bishonen | talk 13:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, the bug you mentioned is apparently what happened. From the discussion above, I will assume this was simple another layer of technical error, and I will delete the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • DGG, Bishonen, if I can just chime in to explain what really happened:
  1. DGG closed the AfD as delete and deleted Reza Izad.
  2. I recreated the title as a single-revision redirect to Studio71 (since Reza Izad is mentioned there & is a plausible search term)
  3. I noticed the closed-AfD-wrapper template was screwed up and tried to fix it to no avail so I let DGG know.
  4. DGG decided to revert his AfD closure and re-close it with the script, which I did not expect him to attempt (or I'd have cautioned against it)
  5. Because at that moment the article title had been recreated as a redirect, the script followed the redirect and deleted (and UNLINKED) Studio71 instead, and also redeleted Reza Izad (since it deleted redirects to Studio71).
  6. I notified DGG of that, and because I was undertandably unwilling to use my own admin tools to fix the situation, I asked him to restore Studio71 and restore only the last redirection revision of Reza Izad (and undo the Studio71 unlinking). DGG restored Studio71 and restored all of Reza Izad's history. I've already said on COIN and in the ArbCom case that the entire Reza Izad should have remained deleted (and still should be deleted per the AfD) and only the single-revision-redirect-recreation should survive. For some reason no admin had put that into effect yet despite agreement
  7. Now all the Reza Izad revisions have been deleted again despite it being mentioned at Studio71 and a viable search term.

Hopefully this sheds some light. I still won't use my admin tools on this article but the single-revision-redirect-recreation should still be restored (and RfD'ed if you prefer, although non-notable founder names to notable companies are common). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not totally absurd to have one, so what I suggest is that I make a new redirect. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi, Salvidrim!. I won't object if somebody recreates the single-revision redirect, in the sense of creating a new redirect. (Though I suppose you shouldn't do it, since you have pledged not to do any further paid editing.) It was the history recreation I objected to. Not sure what your admin tools have to do with any of it? Bishonen | talk 00:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Well technically the last revision in history is already a post-deletion single-revision-redirect-recreation, so it should be restored by itself instead of creating a second single-revision-redirect-recreation in a row.... I guess? Anyways I think it goes without saying that it is wiser for me not to edit that title (as an editor or admin) even with a 10-foot-pole. :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I', recreating it as a fresh redirect. If nothing else, it will make it clear that I do it on my own responsibility, amd thus avoid confusion with other matters--and to dissociate it from the long chain of errors arising from my inaccurate use of the deletion macro. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:09:07, 2 January 2018 review of submission by DCLawwyer

[edit]


See notes at top of article.

DCLawwyer (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

deletion and restoration of Corey Maison

[edit]

You speedily deleted the article Corey Maison under A7 at 00:05 on 2 January 2018 (UTC). I went to WP:UNDELETE to request the userfication of the last version I edited. Even though that project page says, "[t]his page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon", SoWhy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) declined my request saying,

this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user DGG (talk · contribs). […] information Note: While the deletion was in error because I had previously declined the A7 request for good reasons, you need to contact him directly for a restore.

I have questions: (a) Despite the A7 deletion, why couldn't SoWhy userfy per my request? (b) Why does SoWhy say that your deletion "was in error"? (c) Can you fulfill my original request? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an error for me to delete it because once a speedy request has been declined by anyone, it may not be restored. Speedy is designed for uncontroversial deletions, and if someone disagrees, it is not uncontroversial. I had not noticed the previous request. To avoid the appearance of conflict, it is normal to let the original admin deal with the revert. That way I have the chance to correct my own error.
It is now at User:Fourthords/Corey Maison.
However, it seems there's a significant copyvio problem, and I revision-deleted the versions with the copyvio according to the notices placed on the page. But I notice that the current take consist about half of quotations,. Though they are sourced, we do not normally build so much of an article in this manner, because it is a little too suggestive of copyvio in the very expansive way we use the word, so you probably should try to use only a smaller amount of the quotes
I continue to consider the article not suitable for mainspace, under the policies NOTNEWS and NOTTABLOID. What I suggest it needs is expansion with references showing continuing interest. Even so, I reserve judgment. And remember not to leave it in userspace without improvements.
because of the various problems, I would probably not have restored the article had you been a new editor; but since you are an experienced editor with considerable very good work to your credit, I feel confident in trusting you to deal with it properly. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually had very little experience with speedy deletions, so thanks for the explanation! As for the current state of the article: I wouldn't ever put such a piece in the articlespace myself. The article'd already been made though, so I was just endeavoring to bring it up to snuff as quickly as I could. I knew it still wasn't great by any means, but I'd hoped it was enough to stave off speedy deletion for the short-term. Thank you very much for the praise, and thank you for the userfication! — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Toby Keith

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Toby Keith. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

[edit]

Hey! I see you turned down the draft for Datari Turner due to the article being Written by a known paid editing firm without declaration of conflict of interest at the article and asked to resubmit. I declared that Datari is a client on my userpage but where else does it need to be declared? Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest either as a note at the top of the article, or a note at the bottom, or on the article talk page. I am of course well aware that anything from your account is or is likely to be paid editing, but not all potential reviewers will be. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

@DGG: I was wondering if you would be willing to comment at Draft talk:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy § Request for comment regarding an article that you formerly nominated for AfD. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info for Wikiproject Canadian Visual Arts

[edit]

Happy New Year, David! As I had mentioned I am sending you the text for your comment before I format the page. You will notice all of our Royal Societies and such Canadian anomalies as a provincial gallery called The Rooms, as well as Auction Houses called Galleries as individual's cannot be an art dealer in Canada, only galleries. Also, if you don't mind having a look at two recent ones that I did. Alan Klinkhoff Gallery, which is my third auction-artist estate house, hasn't been reviewed and I'm wondering if it's because of the "gallery name" although I wrote a comment in the talk page. Like Heffel's it's an office when you go in there are four desks crowded in a front room with no art, with a back room open to the public only for exhibitions of artist or collector's estate sales or "not-for-sale shows" complete with hockey sticks. With Annie Baillargeon, I'm wondering if I'm a little OCD when it comes to referencing as I'm a history major as well as designer-writer-educator. Thanks again. HeatherBlack (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Canadian Visual Arts

The goal to improve entries or add new entries to Canadian artists, art groups or institutions through a listing of:

  • 1. Key Canadian Institutions and sources of information.
  • 2. Entries marked as stub or require improved notability
  • 3. Artists for entries from French Wikipedia with notability information in English.

Key Canadian Institutions and sources of information to support notability:

  • Wikipedia Notability: Creative professionals 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Entries for improvement

French entries for English versions

  • Gabor Szilasi [1]
Comments: (1) Regional newspapers are not really reliable for notability of artists, since they will usually include every bona-fide exhibition. And even for national newspapers, depth of coverage matters. (2)Same for reviews in magazines . People tend to discount one-paragraph reviews, anywhere. (3) Commercial gallery publications are OK for establishing uncontroversial facts. &what the artists want to say about their work. I suppose there are some that count towards notability , but I do not know how it would be accepted--it's not me that you have to satisfy. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. So, if I understand correctly, I'll move National Gallery of Canada (some biographies and/or works), Order of Canada, SASKART, museum catalogues, and Canadian Dictionary of Biography to notability. Under biographical information sources, I'll add media reviews (over two-paragraphs) together with the Note: use commercial artist catalogues, blog interviews, web or unpublished CVs for background information only, artist statement or technique. Does that make sense? Also as I'm doing more clean-up with only three or so new (all notable RCA, FRAIC, OCs or auction-related) and want to advise others, any comment on my own work, re Alan Klinkhoff Gallery and Annie Baillargeon (since 2014 my sole non decorated artist) is appreciated. HeatherBlack (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Raegan Revord

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Raegan Revord. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your DRV comment?

[edit]

You might want to double-check this edit of yours. I suspect you put it in the wrong section. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Thanks for letting me know . DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management

[edit]
Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Tony_Ahn_PR/Reputation_Management.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matthew Fergusson-Stewart

[edit]

Saw this too late to do anything as nobody notified me about it or the other articles that were deleted, but in response to "promotional article for someone whose job is promotion. I tend to look at such articles quite skeptically. There is very little here that indicates any actual notability, and a great deal that indicates a self-indulgent bio, ("Fergusson-Stewart honeymooned on Islay and named his firstborn daughter Islay."--which happens to be where the Scotch he promotes is produced) known to be written by a declared paid editor, who is by training a PR professional .I think this is one more instance that paid editors, declared or undeclared, regardless of their good intentions,are generally not likely to write a NPOV article. The references are PR, and that;s all there is. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)"

The Scotch he promotes is Glenfiddich which is a Speyside single malt produced in Moray. It is not produced in Islay, one of the southernmost of the Inner Hebridean Islands located off the west coast of Scotland. Did you really need to fabricate something in order to get the deletion? You disappoint me. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my error on the Scotch. I should have said "where Scotch is , famously, produced" sorry. But a self indulgent bio it certainly is. But it is true one might write such a bio merely because one likes the whiskey. And it is also true that people without a direct coi often write articles indistinguishable from coi because they copy the model of the great many promotional articles on WP. Some have even told that they thought that's what WP wanted. DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you watching them tell me that editing in userspace is still COI editing? Do you agree with that? If so, when did you switch your position? Because you were very supportive when I first came up with the idea for the process. If you don't agree with that, please say so. I've also asked them 3 times how to get the sockpuppet tag removed from accounts that have nothing to do with mine (and from accounts that already identify their connection with me, like my own personal account, which got tagged as a sock too), and nobody will touch it. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has confused several issues. In my opinion: although editing in user space with a conflict of interest is editing with a conflict of interest, it is the permitted way to do coi editing, as long as the editing is NPOV. That was so at the time, and remains the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Canadian Visual Arts

[edit]

Hi David. Thanks for your help. I put the page up and will be sending it to other Canadian art writers. Following your recommendations, I changed the text and added the "Advice to new writers" section from the notes that you previously sent me which were so helpful. To be honest I would have stopped writing then and there if you hadn't come to my rescue. And I'm sure that happens a lot, hence this page. Please let me know if I made an error or if something is controversial. Also I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the Alan Klinkhoff Gallery and let me know if it needs improvements. Cheers HeatherBlack (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work!, but there are always some details. I've adjusted the following:
(1) use lower case whenever possible: Canadian art, not Canadian Art
(2) Everything should only be linked the first time it is mentioned.
(3) Every institution name should be linked.
Still needed: be specific " set auction record" what price? If a work is a painting, say so. There are several Rene Richard's in WP--which one is it here?
Is it "Alan Klinkhoff Gallery" or "Galerie Alan Klinkhoff" or are these equally official English and French titles? Use one throughout the article, specify the other as an alternative in the first sentence., and link from it.
Also keep in mind
Normally we give last names only, or just "he", after the first mention--but this article is an exception because of multiple people from the same family. Avoid it otherwise.
Normally I tend to consider anecdotes about childhood interest leading to the career a promotional device, but in this case of a multigenerational enterprise, it's relevant.
Consider linking people who should have articles--the red links indicate what's needed.
Try to word interviews as compactly as possible. It can be tricky. If the reference gives the topic of the interview, it's not necessary to give in the text. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re Alan Klinkhoff Gallery, thank-you, your comments were excellent and I adjusted the text. It is now clearer, thanks. I italicized the french version of their name as by law that's the one they have to use in Quebec. I do follow the last name use in my columns and Wikipedia but, when stuck, use this style for families. I didn't know about the link rule for first-use only, which I'll follow in the future, so I'll add it as number 4 in the advice list (*4 Try to link art institutions, museums, and other artists. Please note that text should only be linked the first time it is mentioned.). I'll also change the name to Wikiproject Canadian visual arts. If there is anything else, please let me know. And thanks again for your help! You certainly deserve the "Diplomacy barnstar"' Best regards HeatherBlack (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Michelle Garvey

[edit]

I'd like to add this to the article, but i feel someone else could do a better job. This report from KHOU indicates that there were signs of sexual assault (i assume that means she was raped) and although Michelle was clothed, she was missing things like her bra and her shoes.

www.khou.com/news/investigations/investigations-who-killed-michelle/408484935

Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, not my area. DGG ( talk ) 18
08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Powerhouse Films

[edit]

What's your opinion of Powerhouse Films? I note at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 285#List of Powerhouse Films releases you suggested to an editor that this was submitted as a draft, but looks like it has just been recreated in mainspace, albeit with a bit of an intro about the company. I speedied it, but I'm wondering if I might have been a bit hasty... --woodensuperman 10:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

speedyingas a recreation was perhaps not ideal, and it was declined. I just added a speedy tag for G11 advertising. If declined, I suggest AfD. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original author of the page - how about making suggestions on how to improve the article in its talk section rather than blanket deletion (which seems rather excessive and abusive)? Cagwinn (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every individual paragraph would have to be rewritten to omit promotional phrases and write in plainer sentences. And there still remains the original problems with the catalog, which is still half the contents. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerhouse Films. --23:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft: William Russell (poet)

[edit]

hi DGG, i came across the above article when looking at "Category:Lists of Australian writers", i have removed the category. it was created by William Russell (Poet), an spa who doesn't appear to know how WP works, should it be deleted, moved to a subpage of the creator, or put up at afd? (im unsure about the subject's notability, i have found this but that is all) thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

probably notable nonetheelss. I am inclined to give some latitude to people notable in traditions like his. I removed a longquotation of his work, whichis unencycopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC) .[reply]
thanks very much. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Emeshali

[edit]

Hi DGG. I'd contested the speedy deletion of this after pruning it right back. Shouldn't there have been some discussion before it was deleted? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oil on Water

[edit]

You made a minor edit to this, is it worth keeping any longer? It has had no substantive edits since May. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

three significant awards, major writer. I'm reluctant to try to cut down the plot section of a book I haven't read, but that's the only reason for not accepting it. Maybe I'll eliminate the plot section entirely. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Sunday! Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference (updated speakers + schedule)

[edit]
Sunday January 14: Wikipedia Day NYC 2018

Part of Wikipedia's global 17th birthday celebration, Wikipedia Day NYC 2018 at Ace Hotel will include a mini-conference of scheduled panels as well as unconference style talks and discussions proposed by attendees on the day of the event. We are very excited to announce speakers such as Jason Scott (Internet Archive), Jackie Koerner (Visiting Scholar, Wiki Ed), and Andrew Lih (Wikimedia DC), as well as a fantastic line-up of panels that highlight projects and issues of relevance to the Wikimedia NYC community.

See Wikipedia Day NYC 2018 speakers + schedule

And there will be cake.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

10:00am - 6:30 pm at Ace Hotel, 20 West 29th Street in Manhattan

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Megs (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submission for being published

[edit]

Dear DGG, My name is Bill Fink and I am writing to appeal to you for being published into Wikipedia. I have been a journeyman lithographer, taught at the Union print school and taught print at Pasadena City College. Over many years of research in both photography and print processes, I developed my own processes that allow me to form pictures out of nearly any material. When I make pictures with the actual material from the subject, it creates what I call Time and MATTER Photgraphy IMAGINE…a picture of Jon Lennon made of his own ashes. IMAGINE a picture of Paul McCartney made entirely of his own hair.

I believe Wikipedia suggested that they have a problem with paid submissions. I have since been repaid back by the Wikipedia editor I approached for the money I paid to help me with submission. Understand I have vision issues, and a total lack of the submission process, so I thought it would be ok to hire Kirby for his help just a many people hire a lawyer, Dr. or dentist for help when they need help doing things they cannot do themselves.

I have not found anything about Wikipedia suggesting that I must have been enhibited in high end art galleries or museums in order to be note-worthy. I have exhibited in galleries as recently as 2017, and I have been written about in publications like the Advocate as an artist. So, I am asking that you reconsider that my article be allowed to be published on Wikipedia.

I would like there to be aan open discussion that would allow others to review the article on my work and my background in the field of art, print, and photo to see if they find my work notable of being published in Wikipedia or not …..so at least it is fairly reviewed without bias. This is all I am appealing to you for. If this is unsuccessful, then this will have to wait until I do have my work in high end galleries or a museum.

I want you to know, I have nothing against you personally, and in fact under different circumstances, we may in fact have something of common interest in the field of printing. But, I also want you to know that because I feel so strongly about allowing others to review my notabliltiy of the work and because there is ample evidence that I have been published in reliable sources, that I am going to be appealing to the Request for Comment Forum. I want you to know so you will not be angry with my doing this, as I do respect what Wikipedia stands for.

Sincerely, Bill Fink Time&Matter (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only practical way of gettig an article is to wait until there are multiple references providing substantial coverage of your work from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements or publication of the galleries where you exhibit. How good or innovative the art is has no relevance to this. We are not judges of such things. All we are capable of judging is whether qualified people think it important in published work. As ashortcut, we assumethat any work of art in the permanent collection of major museums will have such sources--see WP:CREATIVE.
We probably do have common interests. There are a great many things I have interest in or like or even might be a fervent fan of, which do not yet belong in WP. Thisis not an encyclopedia of what I think important, but of what the general public thinks important.
As for procedure, your Draft is still in draft space as Draft:Bill Fink. If you can improve it with references, do so and submit it again. Someone else will then review it. This is pretty much of a routine procedure and takes no special appeals. Holding an RfC is not relevant at this point. If it should be accepted, I (and anyone else who cares to) will look at it, and consider if I want to nominate it for deletion based on my opinion of the sources. . DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes-- it was moved to draft space when it was realized it was a paid edit. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with the article on Apotemnophilia/Xenomelia?

[edit]

"Apotemnophilia" now automatically forwards to the article on "Body Integrity Identity Disorder" where there is a major edit template. I did quite a bit of work on the Apotemnophia article so I understand this is a very challenging area for Wikipedians. Some neuroscientists believe that it has a neurological etiology and some psychologists/psychiatrists believe that it is primarily an "identity" disorder.The condition is not really understood and it is at the center of some very heated controversies. I wish the editor of the ongoing edit the best of luck but I suspect that the best approach is to have a short article that gives readers brief sketches of the controversy. Wikipedians should avoid rushing in where angels fear to tread...Neurorel (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article on apotemnophila/xenomelia has been completely removed. This is tantamount to eliminating all references to research indicating that there is a neurological component to this condition. Clearly not a balanced discussion of the topic....Neurorel (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: At some point I am gonna have to clone you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Apotemnophilia page was nothing like a WP article but was a hijacked page where somebody was basically building a literature review here in WP, which we don't do. The OP is kind of odd in any case as the literature shows that the "Apotemnophilia" term is more a psych label and the neuro work has been done in the framework of the condition under the term, body integrity identity disorder, and this is the most common term used for the condition today in any case, so i redirected there and turned that page into a typical WP article on the condition per MEDMOS, MEDRS, MEDHOW etc. WP is not the place to assemble a review based on primary sources on any topic. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Thanks for all the hard work.Neurorel (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

Metadata on the March

[edit]

From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing.

Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost.

SVG pedestrian crosses road
Zebra crossing/crosswalk, Singapore

Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata.

For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met.

[edit]
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Matthews, suppose term v in V is only a approximate match to term w in W. Not all shovels are spades or even usable as spades. One cannot dig a hole in earth. with a snow-shovel. The article Schema crosswalk that the newsletter mentions explains this in a more detailed way. I'm aware you understand the problems of using wikidata to map from commons to enWP, or from one language WP to another. We should not pretend this is a trivial exercise. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, indeed. The "structured data on Commons" exercise is rather more demanding, and the ramifications of the current category structure on Commons will take effort to translate. The same phenomenon is visible in fact closer to hand, when one compares typical subcategory structures used on the German Wikipedia, which tend to be purist, with those here that lapse in the direction of the baroque.
I don't see, however, that these "facts on the ground" undermine the simple point that this editorial is trying to extract, from Alex Stinson's posting. Different, rather strict systems can be compared, if one takes some trouble. Wikidata is not committed to a particular ontology, and can handle complex subclass structures. Its query language is very expressive. The precondition is to get everything over a common denominator, first of all. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Canadian visual arts

[edit]

Hello David. I made a few improvements to the Wikiproject, and if the information is of use to you, please feel free to pass it on. Also I was wondering if you had a chance to look at the improvements to Alan Klinkhoff Gallery, and if everything was okay, could remove the new, unreviewed tag. In the past, I found that it was faster to use the "move article" but I have a few backlogged so have now returned to "submit draft" for review. Thanks again for all your help. I really appreciate it. Best regards HeatherBlack (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

[edit]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Lipo-flavonoid

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lipo-flavonoid. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Zeamays (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur)

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem article on law firm; has no body text but has four categories about it

[edit]

Article has no body text (even though it has existed since 2007): Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler. Should it be AfDed?

It also now has four categories

-- Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: I just noticed on the category-creator's talkpage that they have also recently created similar multiple categories for at least two other law firms: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Arnold & Porter, which have larger articles, but should Wikipedia have minutely detailed categories and subcategories on law-firm personnel? Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there was body text--it was removed some time ago for being promotional, and neutral text was never written to replace it. The firm is probably notable enough to justify it. As for the categories, that's a question for CfD. If there's an article and multiple notable people associated with the firm,thena category of --People would seem justified. Dividing it further would depend on the number of individuals. With Universityes, which is the nearest equivalent, I don;t see a fixed guideline for the number, DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for Musicians

[edit]

Hi, yesterday you deleted my page 'Motty Steinmetz' because it did not meet the notability criteria. What exactly are the notability criteria and how can I know if my page reaches it. Thank you, Adam Bernstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Bernstein (talk • contribs) 13:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer

[edit]

Could you have a look at this for me please. I PRODed it because I thought it was a no brainer for not meeting WP:PROF. It was dePRODed by its author on the basis that ' all professors are notable'. Maybe she is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you that she doesn't meet PROF (based on what's in the article). I haven't looked into general claims of notability, but being the head of a department often means you've just been around longer than everyone else. Just because an editathon created the page (or vetted it) does not mean that the PROF rules have changed (and no, not all professors are notable). Primefac (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
I'm looking at the publications in some more considerable depth. My comments will be on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huffpost and other sources for May Tha Hla

[edit]

Based on your AFD comments for Danielle Fong's article, can you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women#May_Tha_Hla and see if they did any better in digging up secondary sources for that? It's leaning on similar notability as I discussed with mainly BBC 100 Women and similar lists but expanded from there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time we eliminated placement on lists as a criterion in notability determinations. Thee have been too many instances of borderline `y decisions based on such factors. (I want to say, that although I sometimes evaluate material a little differently than you, I greatly respect your attempts to bring some realism and common sense to these discussions.) DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. The Danielle Fong article has a better chance at notability than some of the AFD, AFC and New Pages Feed articles I've had to deal with, even if the overall media and apparent rush of new advocate editors is biased towards promoting her causes. Feel free to chime in at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women which is the general thread I have going on, regarding such listings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the pt of view of notability I agree there have been much more unlikely articles. But check my nom. I nominated it because of the repeated promotionalism, which seemed unfixable--I did try. Unless it's protected, it'll soon be back at 40,000. Opinion varies on how we should handle situations like this--none of our methods are fully satisfactory. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it survives AFD then it definitely needs protection from promotionalism. Another editor has already upped the talk page to mention DS-level sanctions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on notability

[edit]

Hello David. Thanks again for your help with Alan Klinkhoff Gallery. Is there anything more that I should do to finish it and have "new unreviewed article" removed? Also I'm doing my first cleanup where there is a notability tag. Once I rewrite it – there are journal articles to back up notability on technique plus featured interviews in cultural magazines – do I take it off myself, ask someone for a review or just leave it on? Best regards HeatherBlack (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Manhatan Associates old deletion action. Neutral sources existance

[edit]

I'm not able to add neutral information to page Manhattan Associates because of old deletion actions. More information on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manhattan_Associates. I can provide many sources to enhance this page. For instance this article from technologyevaluation.com (https://www3.technologyevaluation.com/research/article/manhattan-associates-momentum-2017-active-solutions-for-an-active-supply-chain-world.html). Or this comparison between Supply Chain software suppliers: http://www.mmh.com/article/top_20_software_suppliers

Could you please let me add content?

EspA34 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, this request in the context of your previous contributions makes it reasonable to ask you if you have any relationship with the company: in particular whether you are a member of its PR staff, or a PR or advertising firm doing work for it, or are otherwise being paid to write an article. If so, you must declare it--see QP:COI for the details.
Second, please read our rules on WP:NPOV, The previous article and article draft were the same sort of promotional material that would go into a company web page, without reliable third party sources. The reference you suggest above, is essentially a press release, slightly disguised, but nonetheless an advertorial. If you have more objective sources than that, it might be possible to write a new article draft, provided you declare any connection. Let me know. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unifyed Page

[edit]

Hi DGG, Thanks for taking the time to review the page that I'm trying to create for Unifyed. I did read through your reasons, relating to notability. There are many more things that this company is part of, and involved in. Some of which actually have their own Wikipedia page. Would linking to these pages, and providing credible sources of references to back up, improve the chances of meeting the requirement for notability?

Best regards, Trent Roller (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to show the firm is important because of its role in the Innovation in Mobile App Development Ecosystem (I-MADE) program, you would first have to show the program is notable enough for an article. If it is something more general, being engaged in activities that are generally notable doesn't make anyone notable. The question is whether their roles in these notable things was so important as to indicate that there is likely to be substantial discussion of the firm . DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, Thanks for your fast response. Has definitely painted a clearer picture. Best regards, Trent Roller (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:27, 22 January 2018 review of submission by Zelgizbog

[edit]


Hi DGG. Thank you for the pointers. I have added new references to the article. I believe # 2,3,4,5,7,9and 11 would be considered notable and non-press releaseish. I have deleted the awards sections as well. Would appreciate any other pointers you think would improve this article. I have resubmitted for review in the meantime. Thank you!

Zelgizbog (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

preliminary question: were any of the activities in the "Activism" section successful? DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pentax is a harvard business school case study and was a very successful case. the other one is ongoing. im sure there are many that were unsuccessful that didnt make the papers....Zelgizbog (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Just checking in to see if I can do anything else for this page. Thanks Zelgizbog (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • RECHECK

Speedy Deletion Nomination (Miss National Sweetheart 2011, and 2012)

[edit]

Hi, I am braniac2000, I was just wondering why my pages Miss National Sweetheart 2011, Miss National Sweetheart 2012 are being deleted. I really put a lot of effort in those pages, and I wouldn't want it to go to waste. Would you please tell me all errors to avoid from being deleted. Thank you and appreciate your time.

Have a great night Braniac2000 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that the entire series of events are notable--that they have received substantial discussion in reliable sources--except for press releases or local notices, neither of which count. I'll just mention that the main article on the event might not have been noticed if you had not decided to start articles for the individual years. The main article was written many years ago, when our standards were much lower. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mercy College (New York) alumni

[edit]

Is a new article. In June of last year you deleted List of Mercy College (New York) people under A10 as it duplicated the Mercy College article's notable alumni section. Do we have a new case of just that with the new article?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement--the current article is limited it to the ones with WP articles, and makes an attempt at distributing it by field . But normally the list in the main article contains only a very few of the most important. Either the section in the main article should be edited, or the list merged. I don't think at present that there's enough to justify a separate list. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing out the entries without articles on both the article and the list. The article's alumni section was getting real bad on two occasions before I cleaned it up. I think this list is an attempt to bypass the article. Now both are on my watch list....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

[edit]

Thank you so much for your acceptance and comment about the article on Hugo Gottesmann.Mary Jane Doerr (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been so kind in helping me through this and to be successfull. Deep Appreciation.Mary Jane Doerr (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


When should I ask for a reassessment of my article? Mary Jane Doerr

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 January 15

[edit]

Steak and Blowjob Day, Can you unlock the page and main space the article per DRV? Valoem talk contrib 23:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2018-01

[edit]

Latest news from the Wikimedia Global Collaboration team, about Notifications, Structured discussions, Edit Review Improvements and Content translation. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you.

What's new?

  • The Global Collaboration report for December is now available (in English).
  • Filters are better integrated on Related Changes (see below).
  • Structured discussions now use the 2017 wikitext editor (see below).

Edit Review Improvements [More information • Help pages]

Bug fixes

  • When searching, a click on a filter capsule moved the list of filters. [2]
  • On Related Changes page, the page name entry box didn't show the entirety of long page names. [3]
  • Transcludeing Special:RelatedChanges on a page added unexpected parameters to the URL. [4]
  • Filter menu was opening upwards. [5]
  • ORES preferences on Recent Changes and Watchlist preferences pages have been rationalized. [6]
  • Users are now prevented from clicking on a link when they click outside of the dropdown menu to close it. [7]

Work in progress

  • Filters on Related Changes page are better integrated and get new features, for instance: [8]
    • The standard auto-completion mechanism is available when you search for a page to look at.
    • It is more clear if you are looking to pages linked from the target page or to the target page.
    • You no longer need to click the "Show" button; the page updates automatically when a page is positively identified via autocompletion.

Content translation [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

  • Further enhancement are made for list (Suggestions/In-progress/Published) items on mobile screens. Long titles no longer overflow or overlap with other interface elements. [9]
  • Various changes to the "New translation" dialog and the selected page for translation have been made: [10]
    • Longer titles of selected pages are displayed in smaller. Some space has been added around to increase readability.
    • Language codes are not truncated by ellipsis anymore. Only full, autonym language names are subject to truncation.
    • Minimal screen sizes and selected suggestion dialog have been revisited. They are more consistent in responding to screen size changes.
    • Discard button is no longer shown on small screen sizes.
  • Language filters no longer render wrong or non-existent language codes. [11]
  • The "New translation" dialog now shows a loading indicator and doesn't display an error when you change the source language after an unsuccessful research. [12]

Structured discussions [More information • Help pages]

Recent changes

Future changes

  • Structured discussions does not always follow wiki's configurations concerning talk pages indexation. This will be fixed. [15]
  • Hidden topics will not be indexed by search engines anymore. [16]

Notifications [More information • Help pages]

Bug fixes

  • User rights change notifications were displaying a broken link. This is now fixed. [17]
  • "Mark as read" buttons had a bad appearance for users who don't have JavaScript activated. [18]

Collaboration team's newsletter prepared by the Global Collaboration team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

00:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James D. Zirin

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James D. Zirin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Thank you for your contributions

CanadiaNinja (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod: Simple Energy

[edit]

Hi DGG, I have deprodded Simple Energy because it's been previously kept at AfD. I only did this for procedural reasons and have no prejudice against you taking it back to AfD. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vimala's Curryblossom Cafe

[edit]

I recently made this close to an AfD. I am not seeing any consensus here, Spartaz has questioned the close. In normal circumstances I would revert, however Spartaz has been less than neutral when dealing with me and far from cordial. I noticed you voted delete in this case but it appears that another editor Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) has edited it after me close which appears to be consensus through editing. I have no qualms if you elect to reopen it and as you voted delete Spartaz should not have any issues with my request from you for a neutral third party opinion. I can't see any consensus to delete and his statements on my talk page are patently false. I highlighted WP:AUD and arguments which favor both inclusion and deletion, not a vote count, though the vote count was in favor of keeping. Any input from you is appreciated, for or against. Valoem talk contrib 17:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really reopen a close on an AfD I voted in. I might be reopening it hoping for a reclose as delete. Spartaz and I rarely agree at either AfD or Deletion Review, but I think we both usually feel that it make little sense to challenge a non-consensus close unless it wholly irrational, and your close was reasonable enough (though I would advise you never to even mention the vote count in a close, even in a general way). I presume the request is because of the principal of WP:NAC; NAC is not clear in this situation, except for the general requirement not to do NACs of contentious AfDs. The simplest thing is to revert the close yourself. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe delete is a better outcome I will reopen, but Spartaz would be bias here already suggesting he would delete, and 100% votes against anything I've done, I would prefer a neutral admin close if that is possible or DRV. Do you feel this to be reasonable? Valoem talk contrib 20:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was going to close it as keep but nevermind we can leave it as nc and someone will no doubt relist it later. Spartaz Humbug! 05:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

User:DGG, I sent this same question to User:PhilKnight, on his Talk-Page, but he had no answer. Based on the directives given by WP:ARBPIA2, are we as editors of Wikipedia who wish to mention the location of a city, say, in Samaria (such as Havat Gilad), required to write West Bank as its geopolitical location/region, or can we simply write Judea and Samaria Area, based on either one of the six Administrative Districts of Israel? As for the name of the country, are we permitted to write "Israel", instead of "Palestinian territories", for places located on the former Jordanian side of the pre-1967 Demarcation lines between Israel and Jordan, known as the "West Bank"? The reason why I am asking you is because an article written by a former editor for Wikipedia had initially listed all of the towns in the country according to region as found in Districts of Israel, but then after six years, another editor came along and changed all regional locations to "West Bank" and "Palestinian territories." Is this proper procedure? If not, can we restore the original edit?Davidbena (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why an arb should know better than anyone else. What is needed for this is community agreement. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So, should I add on that relevant Talk-Page a RfC in order to gain a consensus about the edit?Davidbena (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC and stuff

[edit]

DGG, despite all the respect I have for you as an editor, I was somewhat surprised (and, to be honest, not too pleased) when at John Cabot University you moved a draft written by an employee over the previous content (some of which I had written). I had thought that we had similar views on the pernicious and destructive influence of corporate advertising on this beautiful project. But that is nothing to my amazement at your move of Galleria d'Arte Maggiore G.A.M. into article space. I couldn't see any way of dealing with that ill-written, ill-referenced promotional screed, almost certainly written by the gallery itself, other than complete removal – so that's what I did. I've written a couple of sentences, with refs, and sent it to AfD (you may have seen, I don't know); presumably you thought it notable, but I could find no evidence that it is. A plea: if a page is so bad that it will take longer to clean up than to write from scratch, please don't move it to mainspace; if you think the topic notable, why not create a stub on it yourself, and save other editors the time and trouble needed to sort out a mess?

I see that you've put a men-at-work sign on Leoncillo. Leonardi is indubitably notable, but that page is more or less unrescuable; there's also the possibility of translational copyvio (NB his wife Maria Zampa is called "Maria Paw" in our page, that's indiscriminate machine-translation from Italian – but from where?). There is plenty on him in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani alone, quite enough to write a proper page. I'm more than happy to contribute to that if you would like; I'd suggest removing the current content, probably in its entirety. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


John Cabot has continued to dissatisfy me, and you are correct that I need to take another look at it. I have a very long list of things to go back to. Doesn't everyone?
Galleria: of course I'm aware of the promotional nature, and I stopped several times to consider what I should be doing, and hadn't really decided. Nowadays I usually do not rewrite things as promotional as that. Earlier I did, but the sheer amount and nature of the promotionalism has tending to discourage me. (But even in removing promotional articles, I concentrate on those likely to be by paid editors, who are deliberately trying to subvert our principles, and not the more benign direct editing by the subject, which is usually much more transparent and very likely to be a misunderstanding of the way we work, rather than defiance.) I decided to do this one because I judged it to be clearly notable enough to be worth the trouble--and a little interesting in its possibiltiies. See theafdforfurther comment.
Leoncillo--my principle with these has been to improve it enough to 1/ see that they stay in WP for future improvement 2/ try to clarify the notability 3/ have them read like English, 4/ fix at least some of the broken internal links 5/make sure that references are at least copied over 5/ try to resolve any ambiguities or contradictions --or if necessary remove the obviously defective parts I've done this for the first part, and started the second. If you want to do the rest, please do; I'm somewhat literate in this field, but certainly not an expert,.
People have different approaches to things like this. Mine is that I try to rescue what can be rescued quickly. I'm much faster and copyediting and rewriting than writing from scratch. When I came here, I initially thought what I would do is work on bringing articles in my field(s) to a high quality and writing what was missing, but I very quickly found I enjoyed more trying to rescue the possible and remove the impossible. So I never in 11 years here have actually worked on trying to bring an article to the best I could do with it. Maybe I will someday, but for now I plan to keep going, and I regret the current immediate need to concentrate more on removing promotionalism than rescuing notability--it's relatively rare I can even do as much as I did here.
I'm aware of the possibility of translational copyvio. There surely was some here, and of course its a machine translation as shown by many indications. Therefore I tried to reorganize as well as correcting to avoid too close a paraphrase. And, as I said, other approaches are welcome--and necessary. I don;' really think it helpful to deprecate complementary approaches. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_132_Jan._2018&oldid=1145685927"