User talk:DGG/Archive 134 Mar. 2018

ARCHIVES

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

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

Hello DGG, Thank you for your edits to the Equinix article, as well as the information and guidance you offered. I have made a full disclosure of my COI on my user page. I understand that any future edits I wish to make this article -- apart from updates to simple, uncontroversial facts, or corrections of grammatical or typographical errors -- must be suggested on the talk page and go through the peer review process.

I'm very interested in having the tags removed from the article once it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Please let me know if there is any way I can help speed this process.

Again, thank you for your help. Aik0808 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one for you

;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ardis_E._Parshall --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This also shows the blog is notable.

https://religionnews.com/2015/05/28/mormon-kickstarter-campaign-places-women-at-center-stage-in-lds-history/

still NYN. You are making a strategic error common to those working in fields where there is so degree of skepticism, whether rightly skeptical or wrongly: it is not wise to try to defend the weakest existing articles. Even for high schools, I let the worst of them go rather than try to defend them, even if I think I could by some great effort source them.. Similarly, those skeptical of the strength of evidence in a topic area sometime make the mistake of attacking some of the stronger articles. It is better to let something marginal get deleted or kept by a brief argument than to fight it to the last possibility, because a really extended discussion involving many people is likely to be taken as a precedent. DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David/Dave, I created this stub @ Ardis Parshall, Salt Lake City researcher-for-hire and history blogger, a few years back. I think it's kinda fun for me to argue for its What? 3 sentences of length. But anyway thx for pointing out such considerations of Realpolotik(?sp). :::Gonna keep Ben Park in my sandbox subpage. For After reviews of his in-progress, nuancedly hard-nosed expose...disguised as compliments to the religious genius of Jos.Sm.Jr, demimessianic annointed one, opening up the pre-millennial dispensation's earthly kingdom of the Most High - come out. (@ Liveright.) OK if I ping ya, shd you still be around, to get your advice about whether I ought t-to - re- um- um um r-r-re-creating it? (I used to stutter.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equinix

Hi, the notability is clear. But what we currently have is a very promotional article, mainly written by an undeclared paid editor. If that can stand, I'm very unclear how we are not just providing a platform for their paid advertising. KJP1 (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, as you know, I very rarely do this sort of revision nowadays, as I feel very strongly about such editing. But it is quite simple here to remove the worst of the promotion, leaving in only the factual material. The company will thus have paid for the work involved in the factual update and the work involved in the promotionalism. But they will discover that they paid for the promotionalism in vain, and the COI editor, could not deliver what he no doubt promised. Since he now knows enough to declare, I think he will know enough not to do this sort of editing again. And if clients wish to pay him to update financial results and facility locations, this is the most innocuous form of paid editing.

I would not have done this had it taken any significant amount of work, or if the firm had not in fact been the market leader in an important field of general interest here. I probably would not have done it had it ben a new article, but not all the prior work was promotional . Normally in such a case it is better to revert back to the last non-promtional version, but in this instance that would have also removed the factual updates. When I do engage in this work, I try to make it as easy for myself as possible.

General principles usually have exceptions. Even my own general principles. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But this place does get depressing sometimes. What it aimed to be, and what it could be, compared to what it actually often is. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's getting better. Ten years ago when I joined, even just 5 years ago, it would have accepted that sort of content. You are of course right that we need to keep working, because it still is far short of the goal. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)v[reply]

Equinix

I appreciate your assessment of the importance of the article in your mention here. I was nevertheless very tempted to indef the author. The page as published was an architypical example of unpaid editing (according to your own essay). I do not believe the creator should be allowed to continue to edit it. My main part in UPE issues is to set examples so that we have precedents to draw on for future policy changes, and to provide solid examples for new page reviewers who still probably miss recognising such issues. What do you think?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on his talk p. He did declare when asked. He might be able to learn. If he contributes further such content, then will be the time to block him. I gave him what amounts to a 4i warning. WP benefits not only by blocking persistently promotional editors, but in politely encouraging the amenable ones to stop. We want to have PR houses to have a good opinion of ourselves, even as they learn to stay away from us. We don't want to have to fight them. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt comment there. It was excellent. (FYI: KJP1). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC) talk]]) 03:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Corleone

Can you restore this image [1]? I've restored the article this is a major character in the series. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is not immediately clear to me from where I should upload it. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Issues regarding the article Ambarish Srivastava

Greetings Mr. DGG. You had previously contributed in restoring the deletion reviewed article Ambarish Srivastava back in 2011 for which i am very grateful for your efforts. The article was accepted by all editors and had been tagged as complete and genuine. After 7 peaceful years, SpacemanSpiff has again started making meaningless edits on the article, reducing the whole article to a mere line. He also tagged the article as 'edited by undisclosed payments'. Since he could not get the article deleted at that time, now he is deleting it step by step so as to completely delete it. Whatever reliable source i present, he denies it including all the national newspapers in India. He is clearly misusing his rights. I humbly ask for your opinion as to what should i do to save the article and save the subject from defamation. You might like to go through the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 14 to make the topic more clear. Thank you. Spjayswal67 (talk · contribs)

I have got some cuttings of a few national newspapers proving notability as a poet. Will these cuttings prove to be the reliable sources in order to prove notability as a poet?

Following is the english translation of the news as in Hindustan_(newspaper) dated November 3, 2016. The image of the cutting is here- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_9HwOanYqv44qTeM2pWLzX1sb2sCB2Uu/view?usp=sharing

Translation: **Ambarish illustrating the ‘sky of literature’

Sitapur: Ashish Pandey.

“Deca Das Hai, Kilo hajar, Hecto se samjho sau bar. Dasham deci, sauvan centi, Hai Hajarvan Bhag Milli.” (original words of Hindi poetry written in roman) This way of teaching mathematics through the poetic structure by Master Sahab (Teacher) Mr. Vrinda baksh had such an impact on his student Ambarish that he continued his legacy even after becoming an engineer. Ambarish is introducing poetry to the new generation through literature. The notability and contribution in the field of literature and Vastu by Ambarish, who is the resident of civil lines and an engineer by profession, is original to such an extent that the publishing industry has published his works in three different publications.

“Chhabbees matra prati charan hai kya gazab ki dhar. Hai char charnee ant guru laghu shilp hi Adhar. Nau sat par ho yati shushobhit bantata yah pyar. Das shesh matra prati charan hi Chhandmay abhisar.” (original words of Hindi poetry written in roman). Defining ‘Chand Kamroop’ of mahabhagwat prajati in the structure of same chhand ‘Kamroop’, engineer Ambarish Srivastava highlighted that this is also known by the name of ‘Baital Chhand’ and development of this Chhand by a Chhandkar (Translated as Poet) practicing Madan Chhand or Roopmala would be an easy task. He also presented the definitions of chhand ‘Vidhata’, chhand ‘Ullala’, chhand ‘Geetika’, ‘Lalit’ Chhand and many other styles of chhands in their own structures.

He also highlighted 23 types of Doha (A kind of poetic style) in their own styles. Engineer Ambarish Srivastava once said that in order to get the new generation an essence of Hindi Literature, he organizes various online poetic completions. The youth participating in these competitions have shown drastic improvement in their poetic skills and they are also growing interests in participation in various other literature related competitions, through sources.**

Does it proves notability as a poet? Spjayswal67 (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no, but it proves he has published poetry. I will adjust the article accordingly. It would help to have exact citation for the three works he is reported here as having published. DGG ( talk ) 11:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr. DGG. Look like SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) had some issues with me or article named Ambarish Srivastava from the very beginning since the article was created, he also had previously deleted the major part of the article intentionally after this page was approved and uploaded in main space by deletion review. Since the Third Opinion received in 2011, there has been no editing in the form of a poet in this Wikipedia page and neither there was any spamming as a poet. Even then, on December 23, 2017, SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs)has made it a stub by removing about ninety seven percent of this article without any genuine reasons. Not only this, SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) has even tagged the transaction of dollars symbol on this page without any concrete proof, it appears that he has some issues with me or this article. So please remove the transaction of dollars symbol on this page and restore that deleted part and direct the SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) to stay away from this Wikipedia page. Spjayswal67 (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking guidance

Hi DGG, I hope you’re well. I know it’s been a while since we last spoke, but I’m looking for guidance on conflict resolution, and your name has appeared in a number of places across Wikipedia. You commented on my initial propositions to make changes to David M. Cote three years ago, and weighed in on my ongoing dispute with Philafrenzy not too long after. I recently requested new edits, and Philafrenzy again antagonized me on the sole basis that I am a COI editor. I want to understand what my options are and what best practices would be for resolving this conflict. I previously submitted an RfC, requested a 3O, and submitted an edit request.

I feel that despite my efforts, any propositions I make are viewed with great antagonism, and that my character is attacked rather than the content I’m suggesting. It seems to me that Philafrenzy is being deliberately obstinate (and I’m sure they think the same of me), but it’s difficult for me to continue assuming good faith when they neglect to engage on the talk page and instead edit the article directly, with the recent exception of another personal attack after I made another edit request.

Philafrenzy and I have found common ground before, so I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility for us to come to some sort of understanding. Would you agree that mediation is the next step forward? I don’t think we’ve reached the point of arbitration, and I’d like to handle this as diplomatically as possible.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look atthe current state. Arb com, by the way, does not handle content disputes. DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I know ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes, but I guess I'm curious to know where the line is between a content dispute and a editor conflict. I've never found myself in a situation like this, and I respect your expertise.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC) to accept[reply]

Re RSes

Seems a precedent may be established here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TheBlaze_show_Dana_etc._w_rgd_Dana_Loesch, or maybe it already has been elsewhere (WP ought avoid, say, citing Nation of Islam organ '"Final Call at the blp for Khadijah Farrakhan, and The like)?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

commented. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WTR discussion follow-up

Dear DGG, we actually had quite a discussion about COI editing at my talk page. What I said was that when you follow the rules and fully comply, you actually suffer from what Melcous labeled as "more heavily scrutinized" (moderation). My view is that the current practice of such super-scrutinized editing of paid articles strongly discourages paid editors from following the process, pushes them to the grey area and also makes the life of paid-editing fighters more difficult as the volume of such edits and practices increase.

It also frustrates clients who are persuaded to follow the rules. One case where I had a greatly frustrated client was The National Memo case where the article has been rolled back 3 times and currently exists in a highly castrated form (more like a stub now). I had to return part of the payment and apologize. Had these edits been made from the single-purpose account, they'd most likely stayed. At the same time we have a lot of articles where large parts of the text go completely unreferenced and it is perfectly OK. Please don't remind me about WP:OSE, I think we both know what I am talking about.

I also noticed that around 70% of articles about lawyers and law firms were created from WP:SPAs (not necessarily through the AfC). This is an area where the demand is high and commercial interest is very obvious (lawyers earn big money). Editors probably understand that they won't be able to publish such articles the official way simply because people hate lawyers and Wikipedia editors hate paid edits. So the demand is here and shortcuts are pretty obvious. This practice also gives paid editors 1-2 week period to get their payment before the article gets deleted (if that happens). I've also seen some of the articles for the potential clients where they decided not to work with me and go for such shortcuts. All of them were made from single-purpose accounts.

Having said that I want to highlight that I truly understand some of these paid editing "watchdogs" and know that they want to make the project better. I only noticed that these edits rarely add value to the article, they are almost always just in "delete, delete, delete" mode (Melcous is a nice exception from this rule - they actually re-write the text and try to preserve content that has some value). So instead of fighting large amounts of quite clear undeclared edits, moderators spend their time on editing "easy targets" doing it easy way. One possible solution could be inviting some "inclusionists" for the improvement or having a broader discussion about such articles before editing. Hope it helps. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm advocating dealing with the SPAs, especially the sock SPAs, rather than relaxing the attitude. Blocking open proxies and VPNs would be an excellent first step. While it sometimes seems counterproductive to bother the disclosed PEs more than the undisclosed ones, disclosing cannot be a carte blanche to write promotional stuff. Bbarmadillo, you might want to correct the quote above. It misrepresents what I said a little. NPP != AfC. Thanks. Rentier (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rentier removing your quote to avoid the confusion. To clarify, obviously paid entries should comply with Wikipedia guidelines - just like unpaid ones. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of what has been said by Rentier: From my perspective, the solution is to more vigorously remove the articles by the obviously undeclared paid editors, snd to raise the standards for all articles. There is ongoing progress here: We are in the process of tightening up our reliable source requirements for organizations, and a strict interpretation of them deal with at least the lower third. We are once more considering an increase in the number of edits to get confirmed status, (Unfortunately but necessarily, ACTRIAL will be entering the test phase where new editors can edit in mainspace, and this will cause a move of the problems from AfC to NewPages.) We are also considering ways to facilitate people reporting instances of paid editing, or approaches to their business by undeclared paid editors.

Even so, the problem of dealing with the hundreds of thousands of press releases masquerading as articles submitted in earlier years when standards were lower and people were less vigilant is a very difficult one, but not hopeless. We did manage to source or remove about 80,000 unsourced BLPs in a year back in 2010; we could probably screen all organization and organization articles in 2 or 3 years starting with the oldest if there were more people interested in doing this.

The problem with even declared paid editing is NPOV. Some other declared paid editors have told me that their clients are reluctant to accept NPOV articles: they want advertisements. This has been confirmed by recent examples on-wiki, and by the nature of the arguments and many afds. It's also my experience that for those writing both paid and volunteer articles, the volunteer articles are better. It should be possible for us to find a way for paid editors to do more work in providing information for people writing articles. For example, we've been trying for many years with little success to persuade companies to provide freely licensed pictures of their notable products. But what is also needed is more volunteers interested in working on business topics.

Ultimately, I do not expect the measures I've mentioned or anything else now in view will completely solve the problem. They will help it. I'm going to make a guess that it will reduce the problem for incoming articles to half the present. Unfortunately, that will probably be matched by an increase in such articles for even smaller businesses. and for some currently under-represent countries.

The only way to solve the problem completely is to eliminate paid editing. The only way to eliminate paid editing is to require some sort of secure confidential identification for at least some types of articles. That would be a major change in the basic principle of Wikipedia, and would not currently be supported. Perhaps it will never be feasible to even discuss it in the future, because of the need to preserve privacy at least here external pressure. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting follow-up to our discussion here. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courses Modules are being deprecated

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meade Esposito

I recently wrote an article on Meade Esposito, I was wondering do you know if this image is free to upload? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tho it is located in a US government museum, the copyright of the photo almost certainly belongs to the photographer. But as the subject is deceased it is probably possible to use it as NFCC, giving the full justification. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok gotcha. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article for Kesari Tours

Kesari Tours article has been deleted from Wikipedia because it was repeatedly recreated for promoting Kesari Tours in the past (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kesari Tours). If you go through the content written by me, I have not mentioned about any awards and achievements of Kesari Tours as mentioned in the past articles. I have completely referred to facts and figures mentioned in the news sites and they don't intend to promote Kesari Tours. I have cross checked the articles mentioned in the past and I completely agree that they were misleading and inappropriate. My objective of creating Kesari Tours on Wikipedia is to lead audience with appropriate facts and figures rather than mislead them. I am quite aware about the guidelines for creating an article on Wikipedia and I have always tried to stick around with the facts. It will be really helpful if you can review the content written by me and further guide me to edit the content which can be further reviewed by you before I upload it on Wikipedia. It will be a learning for an aspiring Wikipedia contributor as well.

I am also putting forward this request because in India many people get their tickets booked from Kesari Tours and we can also add a column of criticism where we can include a couple of fraud cases that customers have faced. At the end of the day, Wikipedia should be able to spread correct information. I am an independent contributor and I don't support any organization. Hence I am not a supporter of Kesari Tours but I want audience in India to be informed about the presence of this firm just like all the other companies. All of my statements are supported by news facts. As said before, I will edit the article as per your guidance and going forward I can keep monitoring the page to avoid addition of any wrong information or promotional content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wil recheck. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have the chance to go through Kesari Tours article? If you guide me and send me a copy of the article, I can edit it and send it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talk • contribs) 12:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Jaguar-White Tiger Foundation

Hi. I'm interested in accepting Draft:Black Jaguar-White Tiger Foundation, which is a very heavily referenced stub. You protected the main space article from recreation, which is not letting me do that. I can't see the deleted versions, but the deletion reasons seem to have been insufficient references, which issue the draft has now clearly resolved. (I'll also ping @Winged Blades of Godric: who said something about waiting on the draft, presumably wanting to flesh out the stub, but it's been 3 weeks without an edit, and it's an acceptable stub, if Godric still wants to it flesh out, that can be done in main space.) --GRuban (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to mainspace. If tn is going to need at least semi-orprotection, let me know. . DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACTRIAL - next steps for the Future of AfC & NPP

Hello DGG, thank you for your efforts reviewing New Page and AfC submissions and your support for the ACTRIAL initiative.

The conclusion to the ACTRIAL report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation strongly reiterates our long-time on going requirements for the NPP and AfC processes to be improved. Within minutes of the trial being switched off, the feed was swamped with inappropriate creations and users are being blocked already.
This is now the moment to continue to collaborate with the WMF and their developers to bring the entire Curation system up to date by making a firm commitment to addressing the list of requirements to the excellent suite of tools the WMF developed for Curation. Some of these are already listed at Phabricator but may need a boost.
The conclusions also make some recommendations for AfC.
A place to discuss these issues initially is here where you are welcome to join the work group.

For Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

there is a discussion that would benefit from your experienced editing here.104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-enucleation

Can you move Autoenucleation to Self-enucleation per COMMONNAME? It is not allowing me to override. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schools

FYI User:Störm has been rapidly nominating AFD or redirecting schools/colleges articles without looking for sources 2A00:23C3:606E:7301:B545:A1EA:8373:ECBD (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

one or two them are ones I would delete/merge myself. Even for schools, and even for the way I think about school articles, there is such a thing as sub-minimal. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And...another

Blp Tara Westover, created Feb. 24. PhD in history from Cambridge. Has one book, a memoir published by the trade press, garnering stellar reviews.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda cool that the NYTBookRvw and NYT's book section each have its own editors. So, Westover garnered reviews twice on two subsequent days, then in addition got a third blurb in Amy Chua's book column!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Chua's is the regular NYT one? I haven't got past their paywall.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I withdrew. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. And, by the way, here's an interview of Ardis E. Parshall by Peggy Stack. WP has such a small percentage of blp's about women. IMHO it's a travesty that wp:Basic so often is subverted in the interest of snooty exclusivity. (Come to think of it, maybe this inclination is in some ways an analogue of "not in my backyard"ism. Just a thought!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Speedy Deletion of Page

I feel that the page for Asumoh Enyiema was unjustly deleted. Asumoh is notably referenced in multiple maintstream publication web sites like NY Post, TMZ, NY Daily News. Asumoh is also a social media influencer. There a plenty of social media influencers on Wikipedia already. I feel that the information of his background is relevant and should be a good addition to Wikipedia. One more thing I have to say is that I have gotten flagged for my username utsolutions. My real name is Malik Hosier. I have had the same email address utsolutions@yahoo.com since 1998. Utsolutions goes back to a nickname "Tiny". I had back in the 90's. I would gladly change my username to MHosier to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utsolutions (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, this is not within my field of interest or competence. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaylee Muthart

General question here, do you find this person to be notable enough for an standalone article? I recently split the Self-enucleation article and Wikipedia editors tend to apply NOTNEWS for deletion of such things particularly due to its recentism. After researching self-enucleation, it is among the rarest form of self-harm on average 1 in 30 million [2], bilateral is significantly more rare about 1 in 90 million. It occurs more commonly in men than women, as far as I can find, this female is the only cases to hit mainstream media (a thorough search might find more), and one of bilateral enucleation. Due to the rarity do you think she is notable for a stand alone? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) How about making her into a redirect to the article? PamD 22:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC) @Valorem: Forgot to ping. PamD 22:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the interest is in the fact of someone having done it. Nit having an article on her is in my opinion a reasonable application of ONEEVENT. A redirect is reasonable,and I made it. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

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

Draft:National Botanic Garden of Belgium

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Anusha Rai

Dear DGG,

I can see your message in my talk page to regarding Articles for deletion of anusha Rai. Could you please let me know the proper reason for why it is considered for article for deletion. She has done as lead in movie Mahanubhavaru, new movie karshanam is getting ready for release. she has acted in vani rani famous Tamil serial which was coming in sun network under Balaji Tele films. Please check this articles https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/sandalwood/070318/this-hudugi-is-raiding-high.html http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/south-masala/the-long-road-to-acting/articleshow/63275203.cms. Request you to not to delete the page.

Many thanks and Regards, Kiranpz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranpz (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I merely listed it for a discussion. Since it is now at AfD, the consensus of the community will decide. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion/Laura Meakin

Dear DGG,

I can see your message in my talk page regarding Laura Meakin's Article for deletion. Could you please guide me how I can improve to avoid deletion. Also, now the article can only be edited by the administrator. May I know how I can contact the administrator so they can edit it? Laura Meakin has done a lot of work in film and drama industry. I can provide you the resources of her work.

Many thanks and Regards,Abdulwahidmalek (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am the administrator who protected it against re-creation. There's actually nothing you can do to improve the article enough for inclusion, because her career is not yet significant enough for her to be notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia. it's up to her

when she progresses beyond bit roles in major films to major roles in such films, someone will write the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artist at AfD

Hi DGG, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Waugh (2nd nomination). I sent it to AfD, and it has devolved into a Bludgeon fest, with at least one of the !Keep editors having Canvassed. The !keep editors have participated in less than 50 AfDs each (with the most confident of them, only voting with consensus 47% of the time), and it seems like they are forcefully attempting to claim a rather different set of expectations around Artist 4(b) than I have seen elsewhere at AfD. Furthermore, the Bludgeoning seems to have discouraged any new voices from participating. Your experienced and impartial advice is welcome, either here, or on the AfD. --Theredproject (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obits...

When nothing but obits are cited, (some of which are in national RS) is that acceptable for notability of a recently deceased person who was a local social justice advocate 20 years ago? Just needing a gage for future reference. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the source. I trust full editorial obits in the NYT (after 1896) and the London Times. I am unsure about any other paper in those two countries for recent years, however reliable they may be for other purposes. There are other papers I trust for various parts of the 18th thru early 20th centuries. There are presumably equivalent ones in other countries, but I am less familiar with their standards.

An increasingly common problem with all newspapers, including the NYT, (and some National biographies) is their coverage of representative people, rather than important people, for obits and otherwise. This has not yet infected the NYT obit section.

Another problem is the focus of the NYT in the early 20th century upon high society figures. This tends to affect more the wedding coverage, but they are what people paid attention to back them. I'm not sure how to handle that aspect. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TY... ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:National Invasive Species Council concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:National Invasive Species Council, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Eligibility Notice

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

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid supplements

This supplement article, cited in Venous stasis, is from 2012. It includes a very precise breakdown of what the supplement sponsor is not allowed to do. HLHJ (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this may be a different type than the earlier pseuo-peer-revieweed articles I remember. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Joseph Bishop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joseph Bishop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Bishop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Fair use of abstracts

The older catalogues I've seen reproduce abstracts freely, and so do many modern catalogues and publishers. But I've heard, unreliably, claims that abstracts can't be used under fair use, although I can't find any source for that online. Does Wikimedia have a policy on this? Could we store an abstract of a copyrighted work in Wikidata? HLHJ (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain whether using them in WP would be considered fair use in US law, but they are indeed often used as if they were; use in WP in particular might well be considered sufficiently transformative. However, actual Wikipedia policy is very much more restrictive. Under the current enWP rules for free content in the English Wikipedia, WP:NFCC, I cannot see how they would be permissible for use in an enWP article.

All projects are bound by the general WMF copyright policy--the enWP policy is a permitted exemption under that policy. I do not know whether Wikidata has considered a corresponding policy exemption--it would obviously have to be different than that of enWP and tailored to their particular purposes, and I cannot even guess whether the foundation would consider it acceptable . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the interim I did find one mention of abstract fair use online; here, scroll down to section 5.

I can't imagine they could be used in the article text; I was thinking of using them purely as a resource for searching for references in the bibliographic database being created on Wikidata, Wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData (which many expect to eventually become its own project, like Wikisource or Wikiquote). My own private bibliographic database mostly contains abstracts, because it makes it much easier to find the reference I need to cite.

Wikidata appears not to have copyright policy exemptions.[3] So it looks to me like this is something to discuss later as a possible exemption for a bibliographic database project, if I've understood correctly.

Thank you very much for your help, you made it much easier for me to figure out what I needed to know. HLHJ (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to save the Article Ambarish Srivastava

Greetings Mr. DGG. Look like SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) had some issues with me or article named Ambarish Srivastava from the very beginning since the article was created, he also had previously deleted the major part of the article intentionally after this page was approved and uploaded in main space by deletion review. Since the Third Opinion received in 2011, there has been no editing in the form of a poet in this Wikipedia page and neither there was any spamming as a poet. Even then, on December 23, 2017, SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs)has made it a stub by removing about ninety seven percent of this article without any genuine reasons. Not only this, SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) has even tagged the transaction of dollars symbol on this page without any concrete proof while this article was created by me, it appears that he has some issues with me or this article. Now he is misusing his powers to kill this article. Actually he is intentionally killing this article slowly now he made it a stub. So please remove the transaction of dollars symbol on this page and restore that deleted part and direct the SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) to stay away from this Wikipedia page. Spjayswal67 (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me at every place you write a message, it is obvious that you and the other sock accounts have been using Wikipedia to promote this (and possibly other articles). —SpacemanSpiff 07:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of notability. The award is not considered sufficient to give a presumption of notability , and there is nothing else substantial, either as a engineer or a poet. I think it's a candidate for afd. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Spacemanspiff. I am not Pinging you. You are making falls blame here.Spjayswal67 (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Mr. DGG as you wish. Mr. SpacemanSpiff had nominated this article for AFD in Feb 2010. Then it was carried for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 14 where you find it acceptable for main space because you was also involved that discussion. Now Mr. Spiff had destroyed this article. If other AFD occurs, I will fight again.Spjayswal67 (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Deletion review closed with the statement :"Moved to main space. Can be listed at AfD at any time by any editor." I said there "The closing admin should not have closed after the minimal discussion, but should have relisted; however, I think the result would have been the same. There are still some serious concerns with the article." DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Spjayswal67:--Another AFD is occuring, right now and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambarish Srivastava (2nd nomination).So, please casting random baseless assertions against established sysops, at t/p(s) of multiple people and take your arguments to the place, where it will matter.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re: deletion of Leonard Barry Smith

Hello, David Goodman, with regard to the recent speedy deletion, I am curious whether you read the TALK page prior to the action? If so, could you elaborate upon the rationale for your decision? If not, can I provide those TALK points on this page? Thank you.

CanadianBiographies11111 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry, I forgot to place the = symbol at the end of the heading, so hope you can still see this request.

CanadianBiographies11111 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I willget there tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way

Modernpaper.co has itself been deleted three times now (making eight in total) and there's an obvious duck block in there for you if you're interested. GMG ^talk 16:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look, a barnstar for you!

		The Art+Feminism Barnstar
		Thank you for your support for Art+Feminism!
		_{this WikiAward was given to DGG by Theredproject (talk) on 00:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove speedy deletion tag

Hello DGG, Thank you for reviewing our article as well as the information and guidance you offered. I'm very interested in having the tags removed from the article once it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Please let me know if there is any way I can help speed this process.

Again, thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sujit.jha3 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin asked you some questions on your talk p. Please answer them. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Embark (company)

Hi, I contested the speedy deletion tag there. I'm going to give it another shot in draft space to address the concerns, but before I do, I was just curious about the speedy deletion process as well as any tips you might have to avoid another deletion. Calm Omaha (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see comment on you talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]