User talk:DGG/Archive 172 May 2021

                                       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

Thank you for reviving my page

I just want to thank you for helping revive my page Central Powers intervention in the Russian Civil War. I made it in May of 2020 but did not continue to try and improve it so it could stay a proper page and not be a draft. I did not expect to see it return again as I came back to look on the russian civil war page but found the page I made in the theaters box. So I just want to say thank you for doing so and looking forward to the page thriving [[User:JoshRamirez29|JoshRamir

Hello DGG,

Since you are an admin who has expressed concern about the use of "Discretionary Sanctions", I thought it might be best to ask you: is there an quick and easy way to see if any given article has DS applied? I wish to stringently avoid such articles entirely until (and unless) the serious issues you and others have identified with this policy are fixed, but even for an article that I know from discussion elsewhere has DS, I don't see where it's marked that way.

ShashakiroSH (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

ShashakiroSH There are several lists: Wikipedia:General sanctions and WP:DSTOPICS, but you also need to see WP:Arbitration_enforcement_log, to see exactly how each of them works. The sanctions are not necessarily placed on each page in the area.; the ones that have been are listed in CATEGORY:Pages with discretionary sanctions editnotice, I know it's absurdly complicated; but you will get a warning if you edit any of these. . DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Request on 14:15:28, 3 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by JulieKB1953

• JulieKB1953 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sara Bradley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know what changes I need to make to Sara Bradley article so it will not be deleted. I find references to her on Top Chef Kentucky article. She could be added to Notable People from Paducah, Kentucky. I look at articles of other contestants and try to figure out the criteria for articles. Thank you.

JulieKB1953 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC) JulieKB1953 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

she might be notable if she had won, but she was only runner-up. We do have some articles on contestant who did not win, but they are among they many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower.

I see from your user page that you wrote this as a paid editor, but you declare only that you work for Estes Public Relations. You need to also declare every article you write or contributed to in a paid capacity, Se WP:PAID. . My advice would be to work on articles of personal interest to you until you learn our standards. . DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Question about Rejection of Pima Community College Foundation

Hello,

You recently rejected the article I created for PCC Foundation. You said that the subject didn't warrant it's own page because it could fit on Pima Community College's page. I do, however, believe that it should be its own separate page. It is its own separate non-profit organization and is actually not run by Pima Community College anymore. The Foundation has its own Board of Directors that runs it, which is completely separate from the Board of Governors that runs the college.

The Foundation really is a separate entity from the college. Seeing as there are articles that have less cause to have their own article, is there any chance you could reconsider your verdict? Are there any other things you believe the article would need to have in order to more clearly showcase its need for its own article? Please let me know if you have any other questions that I can answer.

Thank you for your help BrookeLe13 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)BrookeLe13

In the case of public institutions, such as this one , it is almost always considered advisable to ask for financial support from the alumni without the funds being under the control of the government body. This helps isolate the school from politics, and help ensure that the donations supplement the government's budget, not replaces it. They are therefore always legally separate from the institution, or there would be no point in them. However, they exist only to serve the purposes of the college, as an auxiliary. I do not think we have ever had a separate article for such a foundation (I may be wrong, and if you have found any, please let me know) , including any of the most important universities that have foundations, and even including those such as Texas A&M or University of California, where the university foundation play an especially large role.

There are some split articles that fall under special accepted cases, like a list of alumni of a college, where the list can be too long for the article. And there are a few thousand split articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have actually seen an article about a foundation. The one I saw was the Jefferson Scholars Foundation which performs that function for The University of Virginia. I see what you are saying, but I think that an organization with its own history would be hard to fit into another page smoothly and in a way that made sense without taking away from the main topic of the page. Thank you again BrookeLe13 (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Brookele13

thanks, I will take a look at it. DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

and it's been desleted as promotional -it isn't even a college's foundation, but a special scholarship scheme within a college. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it for me BrookeLe13 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)BrookeLe13 Thank you so much for your consideration and response. I am very grateful for your time and appreciate the information about community standards and policies that are now in place. Over the last few weeks, a series of pages that I have listed below have been brought to my attention and I have been asked about the equitable treatment of foundations considering the fact that so many are on Wikipedia. To honor the work that the foundation is doing, I am forwarding them to you with the hope that this might help you make a final decision and make sure that we exhaust all possibilities to help our local community. I hope that you understand and I thank you once again for your time. Harvard_Foundation SDSU_Research_Foundation USC_Shoah_FoundationBrookeLe13 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)BrookeLe13

CRC Advisors

I'm shocked that you accepted this articles for creation submission. If you check the sources in the article, hardly any of the content is verifiable. Sentences like "Of particular focus will be judicial confirmation battles, and a broader effort to reshape the federal judiciary, promote a deregulatory agenda, and expand the place of religion in society," sourced, by the way, to The Daily Signal, which I don't think is even an WP:RS (not that it even verifies the content that is attributed to it, but still). Could you explain your thinking on this? I think a speedy deletion is in order. Marquardtika (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Marquardtika, I accepted it because I think they can be shown notable, and might well pass an AfD. . That's the criterion. The fact that they engage in their right and far-right activities is of course sourced to right wing sources, but it's enough to establish what they do. and why they say they do it. Personally, I think the point of the article is not to promote them, but b giving a NPOV account, to make connections clear. I would not be surprised if someone sources it in a day or two. I will also say that some of this is experimental--I am trying to see what the proper limits of AfC ought to be. As for speedy, G11 dos not apply, because there is not a single word in the article to make them sound at all attractive except to those who already hold their ideology. As for A7, an assertion that they are the coordinating body between various right wing movements is an assertion of importance.

What I think the article really needs is an expansion, to include the other groups mentioned, as well as better sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Maliban Biscuit Manufactories Limited

I removed your tag from Maliban Biscuit Manufactories Limited, as there was no reason given for the tag in your edit summary or on the article talk page, and the tag alone does not provide enough information to help other editors improve the article. Ibadibam (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Guidance on Draft:Wendy Videlock

Hi DGG, I've been editing a draft for a potential page for poet Wendy Videlock. I noticed you had commented on the page in November that you believe she did qualify under notability guidelines. This is something I agree with, but I'm not sure how to move forward. I believe the page accurately reflects her notable contributions (e.g. like you said, being published in many anthologies, or even being a finalist for Colorado Poet Laureate for instance). Do you have suggestions on further edits or pathways forward? I'm relatively new to the editing space for Wikipedia, so appreciate any help! Shivpp (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Shivpp, remove the table of the individual poems; instead, in the list of anthologies, mention which poems were included . Give refs for the comment about any for which there has been individual critical comment. (the intro to an anthology, explaining why the poems were chosen, should not be quoted specifically.) Interviews she has given don't show notability . Remove minor and peripheral material, such as her paintings. The reviews of her book are significant, if they have been actually published and are not just entries in a blog or publishers' blurbs--do not in any case quote them from their website, but from where hey were published. How does she earn a living? Does she have a teaching position? Fix up these things as best you can, and then ask me again, and I'll review it. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Clothing

Hello ​ Sir, I have recently made some edits in the subject [[1]]. Kindly have a look. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

RAJIVVASUDEV , what you have is fine, except that almost all of it is based upon a single book. It would greatly help to use additional sources. DGG ( talk ) 13:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ​ Sir, Thanks for your advise. Warm regards RV (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Olalekan Jeyifous

Hey, I am thinking of moving (Draft: Olalekan Jeyifous) to article space. You had objections on notability some time ago. Since then the artist received the 2021 United States Artist Prize, is currently exhibiting work at the MoMA and has some other notable projects since. What do you think? Soupmaker (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker

I've accepted it, on the basis of what I myself have seen of the current public attention he has been getting. Maybe I'lll add some more when I see it at MOMA. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello DGG,

Since you are an admin who has expressed concern about the use of "Discretionary Sanctions", I thought it might be best to ask you: is there an quick and easy way to see if any given article has DS applied? I wish to stringently avoid such articles entirely until (and unless) the serious issues you and others have identified with this policy are fixed, but even for an article that I know from discussion elsewhere has DS, I don't see where it's marked that way.

ShashakiroSH (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

ShashakiroSH There are several lists: Wikipedia:General sanctions and WP:DSTOPICS, but you also need to see WP:Arbitration_enforcement_log, to see exactly how each of them works. The sanctions are not necessarily placed on each page in the area.; the ones that have been are listed in CATEGORY:Pages with discretionary sanctions editnotice, I know it's absurdly complicated; but you will get a warning if you edit any of these. . DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Request on 14:15:28, 3 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by JulieKB1953

• JulieKB1953 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sara Bradley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know what changes I need to make to Sara Bradley article so it will not be deleted. I find references to her on Top Chef Kentucky article. She could be added to Notable People from Paducah, Kentucky. I look at articles of other contestants and try to figure out the criteria for articles. Thank you.

JulieKB1953 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC) JulieKB1953 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

she might be notable if she had won, but she was only runner-up. We do have some articles on contestant who did not win, but they are among they many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower.

I see from your user page that you wrote this as a paid editor, but you declare only that you work for Estes Public Relations. You need to also declare every article you write or contributed to in a paid capacity, Se WP:PAID. . My advice would be to work on articles of personal interest to you until you learn our standards. . DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor. I was told by someone else I should put that because I work for a PR company, but we are not hired to edit or create Wikipedia pages. I am the office manger and do not work with the clients. I was doing this on my own. I am the one that uses Wikipedia for information and just wanted to be a contributor.

JulieKB1953 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

JulieKB1953 , I would advise you to post on your user page exact what you wrote here. You can (and should) say that I suggested you post it.). DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Resubmitted Draft:Jane Suiter

I believe the subject has now achieved notability so have resubmitted the draft for review. Bogger (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Bogger notable, but there's still promotional language and overuse of her name--try replacing most of these by "she", and rewrite the separate sentences as paragraphs. Then let me know. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

DGG cool. Done, thanks. Bogger (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Bogger, I did some cleanup, mainly removing minor material--check that you understand the reasons. Next stepa, use only the one best reference for any particular point. I could do this for you, but you could do it better, There is, for example no need to add a German language source when there is an accessible English source. . And when you cite a website or report, please use the work=. or website= parameter in WP:Cite web to show where it came from, so the reader will know without having to actually go there or decipher the wikitext. (and if there arereviews of her books, cite them). Then let me know. (These steps could of course be done after acceptance, but it helps to do them now--the better the article the less likelihood of questioning notability . DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Great feedback :) First, I tidied up some minor grammar issues and typos from your changes, and I filled out the reference templates to include the source name/domain. Then reduced the references, and moved them to the specific point referenced. I added back in the info on the wedding band, because :1. It was the reason I became in interested in the subject to begin with, 2. It's notability is clear from the fact it was covered by multiple news outlets years later 3. It would make for an engaging DYK? hook. I hope you can pardon the indulgence. I think it's ready for review again. Thanks again, Bogger (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

DGG Added a few categories. Bogger (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Bogger, I accepted it. But I can't guarantee nobody will try to get it deleted. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello DGG, someone who isnot a reviewer puthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyal_Boers. In the main space , it is a paid entry, is it okay ? (by User:77.126.85.201 14:26, May 4)

in general, no , but the only role here might be as a translator of the Hebrew WP article. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeking help with an article containing original research

Hello and thanks again for your advice on the Hoffman & Associates draft. I’ve been reading your user page and based on your highly principled approach as presented there, I’d like to see if you are interested in weighing in on a situation I’m trying to build consensus around.

I've discovered what I believe is a fairly severe violation of Wikipedia guidelines on original research and source reliability in the Care.com article. I've posted about it on the article's talk page, but no other editors have responded. Since I am a paid contributor (my COI is declared on the Talk page in multiple places), I am extremely reluctant to just act unilaterally. My hope is that you would be willing to take a look at my description of the problem on the Talk page and offer up an opinion to help get the ball rolling on some type of consensus, no matter what it ends up being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Care.com

Before posting there, I described the situation to two editors I've worked with in the past, and they both agreed that this is a problem at some level. If things remain quiet, I'll also ask them to participate in the Talk page discussion as well. Thanks for your time and I'm looking forward to hearing what you think of the situation. Please also see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahunt#Seeking_Input_on_Original_Research_Issue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bkissin/Archive_11#Seeking_Input_on_Original_Research_Issue SBCornelius (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I have posted on the talk p., and edited the article accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC/Arbitration on R&I

Hello. Ferahgo_the_Assassin and AndewNguyen suggested that I reach out to you about potentially requesting arbitration with respect to sources being excluded and misrepresented on Race and Intelligence, as discussed recently at RSN and NORN. The way the new RfC was opened so hastily, despite a proposal and discussion at RSN about how to best formulate a new RfC, struck me and several other editors as highly inappropriate and disruptive. It gave the impression of certain editors attempting to "get ahead" of the debate, in order to hold the RfC on the exact terms and venue of their choosing. In so doing, they've muddied the waters and failed to address the questions of sourcing and verifiability that editors were seeking to resolve.

I have little experience navigating the dispute resolution channels on WP, so I was hoping you may be able to offer some guidance as to how best to proceed:

• In terms of the immediate issue—is there a way to get the current RfC closed as improper and disruptive, for preempting and obfuscating the discussion of the sourcing and verifiability issues that editors were seeking to address?
• And more generally, would ArbCom be a suitable venue for raising the broader issue of sourcing and verifiability identified in R&I and related articles? And if so, do you have any advice on what specifically an arbitration request should highlight and address? Stonkaments (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The short answer, is that there is no practical way to proceed with this at present. Any further effort now will harm you , and come close to destroying the principle of true NPOV at WP.

Trying to revise or stop the RfC would not be wise. I repeatedly urged Ferahgo_the_Assassin not to pursue the RfC at this time, because I did not think it would have much chance of succeeding, and a failure would result in just what has happened--making things even worse. Even if you say you want to abandon it, those who wish to find against you will pursue their intentions and succeed in them. Even those most sympathetic, like myself, have a limited willingness to continue to pursue avenues that will not be productive. It will exhaust everyone's patience--you will not be listened to. There will even be a likely motion to ban the people who continue arguing from the topic area, and it might well succeed.

I am similarly convinced that taking it to arb com is most unlikely to be successful, and a loss there will make it impossible to make any progress for several years. As I told Ferahgo, ask me again in two years, if in the meanwhile there have been published multiple authoritative reviews and standard textbooks supporting your position. Without them, it's just plain impossible now or later..

There are not many ways for a minority to succeed in overcoming a biased majority. Repeatedly bringing up the same issue will stop people from even listening. Trying to convince biased people by logic does not work: to the extent their beliefs are seriously challenged, the stronger they will hold them. Acquiring some sort of internal force that can be used for compulsion is not possible in our system--and that's a good thing, because the use of compulsion only arouses resentment. It has beeen hinted that one might appeal to the outside public--that's the worst course of all, because WP is useless if it does not maintain its independence. The only situation where they can be progress, is for new and convincing published explanations, and for new people joining the discussion who have not yet become convinced of the old bias. Even more helpful, if further research elucidates the biology, in a way that might unambiguously clarify the question--keeping in mind that this does not necessarily mean that it will be elucidated the way you think it ought to. Remember, you may not in fact be correct--do not yourself be biased in favour of your own views the way people tend to be.

There is no other way. I am willing to support causes I think I will lose, if there's an important principle--as there is here. My credibility however depends on my being reasonable about it--at the least, more reasonable than my opponents. I will not support this further at this time, as there is no reasonable way to do so. I shall probably make the comment, that "the people bringing this case are probably in the right, but the community has made it clear that it does not agree." If I were on arb com, I would vote against hearing the case.

This is not what you wanted to hear, and I wish I could honestly say otherwise, but I must give you he most accurate advice that I can. If you want to help on WP, work on peripheral related subjects; if you want to help more generally, do and publish high quality research.

If you want to ask my advice further, I would like to have some feeling that you might follow it. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest thoughts and accurate advice. I can assure you that I will indeed follow your advice, as you're clearly much wiser and better attuned to the dynamics of the situation than I am. Plus, it helps that everything you've said makes a whole lot of sense. I'm definitely sensitive to the fact that repeatedly bringing up the same issue will wear out people's patience, which will ultimately cause more harm than good. And I understand how difficult is is for a minority to overcome a biased majority. I like what you say on your user page about not trying to convince your opponents (which is exceedingly unlikely to succeed), but rather focusing on newcomers and those who are still undecided. I'll admit it's a tough pill to swallow, seeing biased claims made by a biased majority and being told that there's nothing that can be done about it (outside of high-quality research, which is beyond my abilities). But it's clear that is a fair and accurate assessment of the situation, so I will take your advice to heart and work on improving WP in other ways. Stonkaments (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting for Article Creation

Hi user: DGG, Last 2017- I created an article about ASA Philippines Foundation user_talk: Filipinotayo and it was challenged to speedy deletion. I found that the article is notable and can also add to Wikipedia article. I hope that you will considered this one. Thank you and keep safe. Filipinot@yo^t@lk 03:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Filipinotayoo, It's pure advocacy--no matter how worthy the cause, we treat advocacy the same as advertising. Furthermore, there do not seem to be any truly independent references. . i see no chance of n article based on what has already been written. I also call you attention to our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

OS

Hello, sorry to bother you. Can you please take a look at this edit- is it possible to remove it? --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

done DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagreement with comments on my apport on "Russian submarine Belgorod (K-329)" 's article, added dtoday by "Spokoyni".

Hi David,

at the start of 2020 , you are the person who made it possible to put my first English Wikipedia article online, and I come to you today because I consider myself as a victim of an personnal attacks that I consider unjustified about the form of this article (about "Russian submarine Belgorod (K-329)"), this from a Wikipedia participant named "Spokoyni".

Today, Spokoyni put on this article these notices with which I completely disagree :

"This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style."

"This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions."

I strive to bring updates to this article regularly, by keeping a watch on the news concerning this strategic submarine.

I try to use terms that are as appropriate as possible to the heart of the subject; for example when I use the term geopolitics as strategic, (and questioned by Spokoyni) "vector" to qualify this submarine intended to launch the Status-6 torpedo.

I would like you to be able to initiate a monitoring procedure on the current situation, so that I am not attacked on points which seem to me to be unfair and inappropriate.

Thank you for your attention and your action.

Regards,

Ulysse de Saint-Sauveur (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ulysse de Saint-Sauveur, these are not meant to be personal attacks, your English is quite comprehensible, although it should be noted that a copyedit or two would be beneficial to make it clearer to English speaking readers. Also be careful of translating from Russian to English via French. Главное управление глубоководных исследований translates to "Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research". Bringing it via the French brought you to "Direction of Deep Diving". However the way the article is written deviates from the encyclopedic tone needed on wikipedia. For example you had "The history of the Belgorod, from the start of the construction site to its launching, followed a course more than chaotic throughout twenty-seven long years, thus illustrating all the difficulties of recovery of the Russian naval military forces after the collapse of the Soviet union." This is your personal opinion, trying to set the scene for an essay-like exposition on Russian geostrategic politics. Other problematic parts - "The K-329 submarine and the Status-6 Poseidon drone are jointly part of the new weapons systems designed by Russia to respond - among other things - to the United States's new nuclear capabilities, in the context of the abandonment of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between these two countries." Where have you got that from. Certainly it is dubious to make this claim given that these technologies have been under development for years, and the abandonment of the treaty was in 2019. Paragraphs like "Among these strategic aims, the desire to set up and exploit the Arctic shelf is one of the major Geostrategy objectives in the short to medium term,[13][21] this for energy issues, various surveys, or even control of maritime flows called to recompose with the melting of arctic ice. The K-329 Belgorod, a top-class submarine vessel, thus appears to be ideal for helping the Russian government to fulfill its claims on the Arctic marine space through intelligence operations and discreet and/or destructive actions in deep waters" and "Another illustration can be noted, through the various concerns that appeared among high-ranking members of the Pentagon as well as of the NATO staff between the end of 2015 and the end of 2017, concerning the Russian plans for undersea cables for telecommunications. Indeed, an unconventional war (which can be expressed through intelligence gathering or discrete sabotage operations) can be envisaged on these very poorly protected infrastructures in the context of exacerbated tensions or even open conflict." are instances of you making an essay argument and putting it in wikipedia's voice. Instances such as "Indeed" and "can be envisaged" are not in the usual tone expected on wikipedia, and raises the question of who is envisaging this. I think further discussion is better on the article's talk page, as I'm sure DGG does not want his talkpage cluttered up with this. But please understand these are genuine issues with what you are doing and the information you are presenting, and how you are presenting it. It would be a start if you limited things to the submarine itself and refrained from theories on how this might affect geostrategic politics. Spokoyni (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not edit in this field, and cannot therefore discuss the appropriate contents of the article. But I will take the occasion to discuss some relevant general issues

The templates that we use on articles are standardized, presumably in order to deliver a consistent message and make the work easier. . People placing such templates are therefore forced to use the nearest one that applies, and the standardization prevents their adjustment to the actual situation. A much better design, which is in fact used in some templates in the AfC system, has a standardized portion, but permits editing. Unfortunately, it takes considerable attention to edit such templates, and most users simply make use of the standard form; I sometimes customize mine, when I have time to do so, for those cases where I think it would be particular useful ( but when I do so I normally use one of my own relatively standardized wordings)

translation requires skill. Some of the editors who are very experienced or even professional bilingual editors think that only they can properly do it. I think it depends of the type of article--those with only a moderate skill in the original language and excellent skill in English can usually translate simple articles in fields they understand without error, or fix up rough translations where the problem is the rewording of rough translations into idiomatic Wikipedia-style English. The really important skill is to know when what you are trying to do exceeds your abilities. There are two straightforward hazards: first, one must know at least a little about he subject in order to catch those cases where a rough or machine translation uses an inappropriate word--this is especially true for things like proper names or technical designations. Second, one must be aware of the tendency of machine translations to not correct for the subtleties of English grammar--a relatively easy case is translation from languages where all words are either masculine or feminine and not correcting the pronouns to the neutral English form. A more complicated case is the use of tenses, where many languages use the present tense for things that happened in the past. Wikipedia English uses the past tense (literary or historical or narrative descriptions are another matter, but that rarely concerns us) These are the reasons why enWP does not permit the use of unedited Google translations--they can be a helpful starting point, but they must be edited by a human. Russian is one of the more difficult languages to handle--my own knowledge is only rudimentary, but I do know that the names of Russian institutions and organizations are formulated very differently from English, and that Russian has grammatical categories that have no simple correspondence in English, and often require rewording for clarity. And it should be obvious that double translation is particularly risky--it it sometimes difficult to tell which of the WP language versions to work from. If a Russian subject is covered by a French article and one knows French but not Russian, one has to first determine if the French version was translated from the Russian, in which case using it is dangerous, or whether, as sometimes happens, it was independently written from the sources.

The line between original research and obvious simple interpretation is not always clear. Looking at the article myself, I suspect that some of what looks like interpretation can actually be found in the sources, and could be referenced. It is also sometimes possible to stick close to the sources, but still imply an interpretation by the wording, and if one is careful and knowledgable, it can be satisfactory. An example in my own area is deducing that a scientist's main interest is, say, in RNA vaccines from looking at the titles of the articles they have published. But if one doesn't feel safe in actually saying that explicitly, one could certainly say that their publications have been chiefly in that field, which is a plain fact and documented by the titles of the paper.

I think that since you are both interested in the subject, you will be able to work something out in a cooperative manner. But don't worry about talking to me here about it-- I've just had an interesting two hours learning about a whole range of subjects I didn't know much about earlier. As usual with reading interesting WP articles, the problem is in stopping, rather than following up other related topics indefinitely. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:DigiByte

Hi I'm having difficulty identifying what parts off the article fall below the standards needed. From my knowledge of digibyte the article is completely factual in relation to digibyte and valid with the publicly known facts in relation to Gerald Tate. Maybe with some guidance I can at least get a skeleton article published. Marljx (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article is directed to people in the general public who might have heard of the subject, and want some general information. But the draft is directed to attract those who might be interested in using the currency, and making a case for its virtues. That's the definition of advertising. The introduction talks about the early life of the inventor, and why he was motivated to create it, in the terms of human-interest PR; it is not even verifiable, because it is based only on what he has chosen to tell other people about himself. The next sections don't describe it: they praise it, they try to show why it is better than alternatives, and are almost unsourced. unreferenced. The history is written in terms of praises for the events of its development. Almost all of it is sourced to pseudo-interviews, in which the founder is allowed to say whatever he cares to--that's not actually independent, and is not accepted as a source for notability accordingto WP:NCORP. The other sourced material is mere announcements and mentions--one is even expectedly quoted in the article as being a mention. The section on the firm' charitable contributions is both minor and overdetailed, just like a press release would be written. Ther is no material here from which a WWP:NPOV article could possibly be written. You might want to se WP:COI and, if it applies, WP:PAID, which will explain our attitude to this sort of editing

The draft has been changed since I saw it--it has been made much more promotional. Everything which in the original was briefly stated has been elaborated. The many additional sources are none of them substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, but press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices

The authorship is also puzzling. The first version was written by an editor who has written nothing else. The changes were made by an editor using another name, who has also written nothing else, and some from an an i.p. adress who has not made an account . Your comment above is the only thing you have written by this name. You might want to see WP:SOCK, which will explain why I am blocking all of you. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion needed.

I came across this edit, which seems very odd, since the later paragraphs are full of numbers in brackets that do not correspond to sources. It gets stranger. An editor posted this content to the talk page of that article with a COI statement that they had been paid to add it. A second relatively new editor then copied it to the article without indicating that this was proposed by a declared COI editor. Declared or not, the content is all unsourced in fact, and the bracket numbers suggest to me that it's copied from somewhere. The article seems to have a history of likely COI/PAID editing. Am I overthinking this? BD2412 T 02:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

its a combination of things that indicates just what you have in mind. The only thing that's uncertain is the original source might conceivably be a compliant source such as wikia. I'll run checkuser tomorrow to see if it adds any info. But i need to ask you, am I right in my impression that notability is a best marginal? For if the subject is by some quirk really notable , sometimes it's worth trying to rescue. Curiously, the matter just above this on my page is somewhat similar. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Non-winning reality show contestants usually do fall short of notability, and the sources here are thin at best. I'm perturbed by the bracketed numbers hinting that there are sources available somewhere that are not in the article, but I suspect they would turn out to be more garbage sources. As it stands, those sections are unsourced. BD2412 T 05:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

• New Library Card designs
• 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

RfA re-evaluation?

I have noticed multiple recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship regarding the lack of admins, the worries of a "post-admin era", the concerns about keeping up on assorted backlogs/maintenance, etc. As the leading (and most informative) opposition !vote at my RfA back in 2008, I would be interested in your current opinion of me before I humbly offer my services again. I just want to help my beloved project, and alleviate the backlogs and stress in the areas that I know best, so that other admins would have more time to focus on other areas that they know better than I. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Adolphus79 I'm checking. There's a lot going on, so I will get back to you in a few days. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you are quite busy anymore. This is not a high priority request, please take your time... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(responded)

Pasbaan-e-adab Submission

Based on your recommendation, the section for Founder / Author has been improved. The reference provided from the prominent publications of Indian. I request you re-review the article and accept for submission.

Article: Draft:Pasbaan-e-adab

Umair ^(talk) 17:22, 5 MAY 2021 (IST)

umairsy . there were two reasons I declined it. The first was the problem of showing notability. The second,, was that it was written like an advertisement. It still is. Try rewriting it less like a web page; remove name-dropping and picture-dropping. The article is supposed to be about the foundation,, not the artists who perform at its events. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Further changes has been done as recommended. Can you please review again.

I assure you that this article is completely based on factual reference, and doesn't intend to have advertising pitch at all. Will highly appreciate your support in getting it submitted.

Article: Draft:Pasbaan-e-adab

Umair ^(talk) 14:46, 19 MAY 2021 (IST)

Draft:Front Row Insurance Brokers

I disagree on the "advertisement" argument because I think the article is written from a neutral point of view. How, precisely, is it not neutral? The language in the draft is very objective and neutral.

Also, "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources" --yes, the article DOES refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources: Insurance Canada, The Globe and Mail, IMDb, Canada's Podcast... So, disagreed on this point also. ArthurRobertRobert

ArthurRobertRobert I re-read the draft. It's a list of the firm's services, supported mostly by announcements and press releases. Most of the trade source are copied from press releases. One G&M article isn't enough, but regardless of the sources, it's an advertisement. Judging by what gets submitted, many people seem to think WP publishes them, but it doesn't.

Since this is your only substantial contribution, and since it is written in the manner of an advertisement, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. ' DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi DGG, could use your help on Adarsh Sahu and Dino James. Several IPs have continued to remove CSD tags from the two pages.-KH-1 (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

once a speedy tag had been removed by anyone other than the original contributor it cannot be replaced. The simplest way to proceed in circumstances like this is AfD, and I have listed both of them, I have no personal opinion is this subiet are, so you may wan to comment. DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The IP is very likely the same contributor (or part of the same organisation) given the use of the term "we" in the talk page. This is just delaying the inevitable, Adarsh Sahu meets the A7 criteria (it makes no assertion of notability). -KH-1 (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your help and expertise with regard to the James Inglese page. I think it is important for scientists of his caliber to be as easy to learn about as professional wrestlers! Hoffmacs (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Interventions on the draft "Andrea Benetti (artist)"

Hi DGG, I followed your advice to improve the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_Benetti_(artist) voice and make it standard for WP. I hope I did well. I await your other advice (also specifically) to be able to further improve the voice. Thanks for your patience and valuable advice, --BarbaraLuciano13 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

BarbaraLuciano13, I did some copyediting--it's necessary to write in complete sentences. The material on his goals in the Bio section needs a source, and if it's from something he said himself, word it, "According to Benetti, his ..." The first sentence summary should include his manifesto only if that's what he is best known for; if he is known for his art, the sentence needs to be changed. For the list of works in collections, it would help to specify the work, and link specifically to the listing for the work, not just to the overall web page for the collection. And for everything in hte bibliography thats a printed book, we need page numbers. See WP:REFBEGIN for how to do citations--our system is a little over-complicated, but see what you can do. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks DGG, I hope I have understood well what you have suggested and consequently have corrected the voice well (I am not english and sometimes I have to translate with "Google Traslate" and a precise translation does not always result). So I am available for other changes if you have any suggestions or to change the latest changes made if I did something wrong. I have a question to ask: in the entry "Andrea Benetti (artist)" there is the template "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments ...". I am not paid to write that voice, but I do it for passion and for the love I have for Benetti's art (which I only saw once at the University of Bologna where I studied, as he held a seminar and talked about art of him). So I ask you if it can be removed, as it has no reason to be (it was put on in November 2020). Thank you, I look forward to you, --BarbaraLuciano13 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

BarbaraLuciano13.

1. Glad to know there's no coi. I'll remove the tag. It's routine for us to ask, as over half of the new artist bios submitted are coi.
2. It's not considered appropriate here to rely on Google Translate alone, without careful manual editing. GT often gets tenses and pronouns wrong, especially from Romance languages, and a copyedit will deal with that. More seriously, especially for complicated or technical words, it substitutes a common term that sometimes does not match the meaning at all. Fixing these is best done by someone with near native proficiency in both languages including the special terminology of the subject, but totally irrelevant words can be fixed with at least a good knowledge of both languages, and a knowledge of the subject and the way the subject is written about in English--it may not be able to pick the exact English word, but it will catch if the GT word is obviously wrong. .
3. There's a list of available translators who can do much more than I at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Italian-to-English DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again DGG for your great help. I'm glad you immediately understood that I don't write in agreement, but out of passion (that template has no reason to exist). I remain available for the improvement of the voice in question, but also for other Italian items, if you need it in the future. Following your advice, I asked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rilkas if please refine the translation entry. See you soon, --BarbaraLuciano13 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced messages

Hi, I ran across these edits when looking at someone's contributions, and I wondered if you'd noticed them. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

looks likek it was added after where their their earlier message, was even tho itt was in the monthly archive. I wonder if it's an artifact of the "reply function". Thanks for noticing.. Ill move it. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Histories of Central, East, and Southern Africa

Thanks for the positive feedback. I will bear it in mind. Rather than being merged into existing mainspace articles of Central Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa as was first suggested, it seems these drafts have been deleted along with the message "already accepted." Would you please clarify this for me? Daniel Power of God (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Power of God I shall have to check the contents. I looks to me as if all the contents had already been moved, but perhaps not all way actually moved. If not, I'll figure out what's best to do. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for looking into it. As of right now, from my vantage point, Draft:History of Central Africa, Draft:History of East Africa, and Draft:History of Southern Africa still seem to be neither available in the draftspace nor available in the mainspace.

For example, the page for Draft:History of Central Africa presents the message: "This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 10:22, 15 May 2021 DGG talk contribs deleted page Draft:History of Central Africa (already accepted)". Aside there being different timestamps for each page, the two other pages present the same message.

As I understand it, if it were still available in the draftspace, the link for Draft:History of Central Africa would appear in a blue font rather than red font (as it presently does), and, if moved from the draftspace to the mainspace, the link for Draft:History of Central Africa would redirect to the History of Central Africa (a link which presently appears in a blue font). However, it seems to be neither available in the draftspace nor available in the mainspace. Perhaps, if the draft pages were undeleted, and then moved to their intended locations, that might work. Once again, thanks for looking into it. Daniel Power of God (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"it wil take me several days. Please have patience, because I'm also involved with other issues. . DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Dehgan

Hello, thank you for your help on the Alex Dehgan page I started. What in particular was lacking in terms of references? The entirety of the Iraq section was taken from that single source; I'm not sure if I have to cite all those details or if so how I'd go about doing that. Other than that I appreciate the assistance and helping me work through the article. User:Dudanotak May 15,2021

Dudanotak The first reference is not usable to show his notability , because he wrote it himself. The second reference is not usable at all as a reference, though you can list it as an external link, because it's his blog. I cannot tell what's in the third. Is it a chapter devoted to him?

For bios of living people, every significant statement must be sourced. The routine facts of their career can be sourced to an official web page at an institution--If he is a professor, he will have an official web page at his university, but we need to have a link to it, and to know know the exact title of the appointment and name of the university. This will be sufficient for the dates of his degrees, the title of his thesis, and the name of his supervisor. It should also list all previous substantial positions, with dates. If he is not presently a professor, this information may be more difficult to find. His web page at Snow LeopardProject is not an acceptable substitute, because he runs the project himself. Everything else must be sourced to a substantial 3rd party reliable published source, not press releases or blogs or postings. This is especially true for anything resembling a judgment or opinion.

�For the material or Iraq, the source , just as you say, is presumable the Chandrasekaran book. It's an acceptable source, but we need the exact page number for each statement. For those that imply judgment, we need a brief quotation, just enough to show the context.

But there is something much more important

Most of the material on the page is copied from his page at SLP. This is not acceptable. You can not copy wording, or even useWP:Close paraphrase. the material must be rewritten from scratch.

Please check your other contributions for this also. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the teaching Dudanotak (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Damon Weaver

Section content moved to Draft talk:Damon Weaver.

...

Yug, I don't think being the youngest child to interview a US president is notable, and certainly being only "one of the youngest" is so vague a claim as to be meaningless. I know it's odd to say that someone with an article in the NYT and the Guardian isn't notable , but if an otherwise RS publishes tabloid material, it is to that extent non-Reliable. That the NYT would permit even a junior reporter (" part of the 2020-2021 New York Times Fellowship class") to use that phrase without showing any evidence really startles me. It looks like they copied it from the AP without checking. But as I've said elsewhere, no source is completely reliable, and no source completely useless. The media world seems more complicated than we sometimes realize. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)...

...

Yug, done. I won't be watching it, so ping me if you think necessary. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC) .

Received. Thanks. Yug (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

May 19: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

May 19, 7pm: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC

Welcome to Wikimedia New York City! You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-8pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page. We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person! If there's a project you'd like to share or a question you'd like answered, just let us know by adding it to the agenda or the talk page. Wednesday May 19 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00pm - 8:00 pm online via Zoom (optional breakout rooms from 8:00-8:30)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 03:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Mail Notice

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear DGG,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for review

Hey DGG:

When you have some time, might you please review this page please? I've asked whoever decided it was ill-sourced and not imporant enough about their decision, but that's been ignored. I am curious if you agree with their assessment, however.

Marc was the CEO of CBS Interactive (a few other former CEOs have pages) and the article is well-sourced.

If it's a matter of content length, I can work on getting more info.

Thanks for your time, as always. Nynewsguy (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Nynewsguy can you find a reliable source for "In his nearly 10 years at CBS Interactive (then ViacomCBS), he was the architect of the company’s direct-to-consumer streaming strategy with the founding of CBS All Access, now Paramount+, and the OTT streaming services CBSN, CBS Sports HQ, and ET Live." ? or is the best that can really be said "During the 10 years he was head of CBS Interactive (then ViacomCBS), the company’s direct-to-consumer streaming strategy began with the founding of CBS All Access, now Paramount+, and the OTT streaming services CBSN, CBS Sports HQ, and ET Live were founded. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear DGG,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for review

Hey DGG:

When you have some time, might you please review this page please? I've asked whoever decided it was ill-sourced and not imporant enough about their decision, but that's been ignored. I am curious if you agree with their assessment, however.

Marc was the CEO of CBS Interactive (a few other former CEOs have pages) and the article is well-sourced.

If it's a matter of content length, I can work on getting more info.

Thanks for your time, as always. Nynewsguy (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Nynewsguy can you find a reliable source for "In his nearly 10 years at CBS Interactive (then ViacomCBS), he was the architect of the company’s direct-to-consumer streaming strategy with the founding of CBS All Access, now Paramount+, and the OTT streaming services CBSN, CBS Sports HQ, and ET Live." ? or is the best that can really be said "During the 10 years he was head of CBS Interactive (then ViacomCBS), the company’s direct-to-consumer streaming strategy began with the founding of CBS All Access, now Paramount+, and the OTT streaming services CBSN, CBS Sports HQ, and ET Live were founded. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll look around. In the meantime, the latter is certainly fine. Here's a citation for him "specifically building CBS All Access and CBSN"

Thank you for your speedy reply. Nynewsguy (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Nynewsguy Unfortunately, you can't use it. It's a press release, and labelled as such right at the top. It's not an independent source, and can't be used for such claims. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Then I guess we can just revert to saying during his time there... I'll keep searching for something better. Nynewsguy (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

DGG Would it be okay to roll that redirect back and change the verbage? I don't want to overstep anyone's toes.Nynewsguy (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll loook tomorrow, to se about rewriting it. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Wema Bank Plc

Hey, David,

This page popped up on the Orphaned Talk Page list and would ordinarily be deleted but it looks like you had some intention or purpose with it so maybe it's just in the wrong place and needs to be moved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Liz, thanks for noticing--I think I got the suggested merge backwardws--I will lfix it tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Johannes Arondeus

Thank you so much for submitting the article Johannes Arondeus for publication.

I still feel quite new to Wikipedia and have a question about how I can remove the article from my Sandbox? Thank you for your help.

Vedlagt (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Arondeus

Vedlagt You place at the top a line reading {{db-self}}, including the double curly parentheses on each side, and it will get deleted; but in this case I just did it for you DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thomas G. Myers Professorship Chair

Hi! Was coming to ask you about this, and then to no surprise found you in the edit history. :D I know that being a professor in a named chair contributes to academic notability, but is the role itself automatically notable? Stumbled on this article in a notability backlog and I can find no sourcing outside the university itself, which isn't particularly surprising. Redirecting to one of the professor's articles seems undue, but would it be inappropriate to redirect to California_Institute_of_Technology? That was my gut, but I defer to you on all things academic. I cannot find any sourcing to improve the article with. Hope you're well. StarM 13:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

For the person, it not only contributes to but is sufficient proof of notability for WP purposes. The chair itself is not automatically notable, but it usually accepted to be for famous chairs, especially the long established ones from the days when such things much less common. They are usually the ones which confer the very greatest prestige One way to check is to look at the other chairs in the dept, another the importance of those holding it. There's no really clear distinction. We can't employ our usual rule for awards, that if most of the recipients are notable, because all the holders would be notable.

But as for this one, the wording is entirely PR, the typical product of a university PR dept. The evidence for that is that almost all of it is about the donor, and I have prodded� it as such, but I would first check for copyvio. I said in 2014 I'd probably accept it, but this is 7 years later, and I am much more sensitive to promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I had checked for copyvio as the tone wasn't at all encyclopedic, but all that came up were wiki mirrors so likely the university press release is now offline. I'd imagine the longer standing ones would have some secondary discussion about Professor X being tenth to hold the chair, etc. but even the professor bios didn't focus on that beyond the obligatory mention as it doesn't seem to be one of particular prestige even within the industry. There are definitely some "the way Wikipedia was" articles in those backlogs. The changes in notability are fun to follow. StarM 14:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Re-creating deleted page of Yewande Sadiku

Hello DGG, a draft was deleted due to your recommendation for speedy deletion as a result of unambiguous copyright violation. Please I will like to recreate a draft for Yewande Sadiku and will appreciate your guidance. Thank you. Bibihans (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans

Bibihans, there is nothing to prevent your starting over in draft. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: Thank you for your prompt response. Bibihans ( talk)

Lucy Gibson

Hey, in Lucy Gibson article's some sources are reliable I think. Can you check again and publish as a Wikipedia page from draft. I have no source without those. P.H.TARU (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC) P.H.TARU The remaining sources are almost entirely PR or unreliable web sources. I don't think there's enough to show notability DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Paani Project

Can you check this article too? I think, this article is ok.It’s has enough media coverage and all sources are reliable. P.H.TARU (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC) P/H.TARU , there seems to be at least one good source, the LATimes. Almost nothing else thereis reliable, and the detailed listing of the small projects trivial. It reads as PR. Perhaps it's fixable.

I think I should give you some general advice: do not include in the references or an article any source that is PR or a promotional interview where the subject says whatever they care to. In practice there seems to be in WP a great deal of tolerance for articles on sportspeople; I may think this sometimes excessive, but it's not my field and I don't interfere, but this acceptance of borderline sources does not extend to most other subjects. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

So,do you think the article will not stand? With this one source can you approve it,I think I will add more in future. P.H.TARU (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't approve it until it has been sourced sufficient that it is quite likely to not be deleted. You have to source it properly first. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Jan Schouten

Hello DGG, thank you for your helpful comment. I just reworked the draft and I think the tone is more neutral now. Do you think there is something else I can do? Thanks a lot for your help! Indyplant (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Indyplant

I added the additional material necessary to show notability by WP:PROF. The very high citation number show him the developer of a widely used method and that he has had an impact on his profession. And I accepted the article. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you DGG, for improving and accepting the article! This really motivates to edit more often and maybe start another draft if I have an interesting topic. Thanks a lot.

Indyplant (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Indyplant

A follow up question on WP:Academic

Hello DGG, I noticed your comment on deletion discussion of Amit Sood that standard of WP:PROF for in medicine is set for above 100 citations with more than 2 papers. I wanted your guidance on where to read more about this. Means, where I can I find these discussions which have consensus on how many how many papers with how many citations would be considered highly cited for each field? It's a question that haunts me almost all the time. I have received some guidance in past on this from Teahouse [2] and while it is logical, it's not very practical. Some more clarity will be very very helpful. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

that article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Sood, was not a good place for discussion because the original article and 95% of the contents was outrageously promotional -- and should be removed entirely. If he's notable it would need to be started over, and I am not inclined to do the work for someone who would , apparently, pay for that sort of promotional writing.

But to answer your question on citations: (copied from there)

Discussion on citations for WP:PROF

(previous comment): The effective standard for WP:PROF in medicine has bene stable for the several years years as 2 or more works with over 100 citations each, so it seems he passes, with 15 such articles (previously, it was 1 article with over 100, but the amount of publication and multiple authorship keeps increasing) . DavidE seems to want to change to a much higher figure, but I don;'t think there's consensus for that. Even if there were, Sood has 6 papers with over 200 citations each, and that would certainly be enough.. . The argument that it has to meet GNG also is simply wrong, and can not be supported by a reading of the notability guidelines (I'll just mention that when I came here in 2006 some people didn't yet accept WP:PROF, but I pointed out that anyone who had even one paper with , say, 20 citations, would have at least 2 of them that discussed it substantially--and that would be enough to make almost every assistant professor notable, tho the analysis for each would take considerable effort. Not even I wanted to go quite that far; the furtherest I've ever argued for is associate professor. ) DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• • DGG-- With respect, where and when was the standard that 2 works with 100+ citations is highly cited established? I'm not convinced that a few users agreeing across AfDs (if that's what this is) really makes a standard... I'm curious to see actual links to discussions &c. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

And it depends on how many authors there are. A publication with 100 cites by one author carries more weight than the same publication with ten authors. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC).

This can get very complicated:At one extreme, there are biomed papers like multicenter studies where every physician who contributes a case is listed as an author. A single author paper in clinical medicine is likely to be a case study, which is not significant, or a authoritative review, which very much is. Experimental work always has multiple authors: it is normally conducted in groups supported by a grant to a single senior individual, divided into smaller groups headed by a post-doc and 1 or more grad students and often an1 or 2 undergrads. (this is a great oversimplification, there are innumerable variations). The idea can come from the head of the lab, who recruits a postdoc to supervise the experiments conducted by the grad students. Or the head may just be providing the money and space for innovative postdocs or grad students to carry out their own ideas.

What academic appointment committees look for to show that someone important is the what they have done independently after their postodc, tho it often overlaps. And in rare cases someone brilliant will come up with something independent and important as a grad student . This can be a major research project in sociology of science; I can judge it approximately for some but not all fields, for there are some universal elements. And an additional way for at least some consistency is to compare with others in the field, both in and out of WP. That can be yet a further substanatial project.

But that's not our problem. Our need is only to make a rough estimate, not hire someone who we will have to work with for the rest of our career. There are the ones so influential in their field that they must be an in encyclopedia , and those so uninfluential that they shouldn't be. The ones we end up discussing here are in the middle and could rationally go either way. And the way we're set up, there are only those two choices. So there is no exact answer, and no need for an exact answer. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Centre for Bacterial Cell Biology

Hi DGG, I noticed you are an administrator. I am being unfairly targeted and reverted in anything I do. I just created a page for my University's world renown lab which was immediately deleted without explanation or discussion. I did not write anything about our commercial services or spin off companies and even if I did, it shouldn't be considered promotion. Please can you look into this. AvidTyper (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

re[lied on your user tallk page. DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more

"Papers in leading psychology, economic and science journals that fail to replicate and therefore are less likely to be true are often the most cited papers in academic research, according to a new study by the University of California San Diego's Rady School of Management." https://phys.org/news/2021-05-replication-crisis-true-cited.html . Found this on my Apple News+ today. 🙉 — Neonorange (Phil) 15:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It has long been said that one way to get a highly cited paper is to publish something that is obviously wrong in a major journal. My example is Peter Duesberg, a very notable molecular virologist elected a member of the NAS in 1985, who became much more heavily cited after he published in 1986 the work that is the foundation for AIDS denialism. It was impossible to ignore him as working outside his specialty, as with Pauling and Vitamin C, because it was his specialty. Citations measure influence, not ultimate correctness. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What's next—obviously wrong, highly cited papers become non-fungible tokens (cf. Why Did Someone Pay $560,000 for a Picture of My Column? Though in that case, the obviously wrong part was the writer's assumption of the auction price. — Neonorange (Phil) 02:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft for engineer

Hi DGG, I published an article that you had draftified. I've been writing and editing articles of various engineers and technologies out of personal interest, and have tried my best to make sure that there are proper academic citations, that they are notable enough, and that the articles don't look like advertisements, and so on. Could you let me know if I can move Draft:Shlomo Rakib back into mainspace, and if not, how to improve it?

I appreciate your volunteer efforts as an academic librarian by the way. I actually started out working at my local university library and eventually became a lecturer before finally retiring. It looks like we have quite a few things in common! Dolphinseas922 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Architects/Artists

When you get a chance, please take a look at this magazine - I'm not familiar with Italian publications. I was trying to find some RS for this article, and I'm probably over my head on this one. Atsme 💬 📧 00:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

it's not Italian, but international. I think its independent enough to help show notability. I commented at the AfD. This needs an expert. Ive asked a few people for help. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Inox Air Products Moving to Mainspace

I have added more relevant references to the page. The products supply oxygen in COVID times in India. Please help me move it to article space. Thanks! [3] Charmi004 (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I have looked, but some of the refs are PR or PR-based interviews, ; and the policy of WP is NOTADVOCACY, so sayin a company is doing something useful or even essential is not an argument for having an article. I will let someone else judge. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Perennial dilemma

(from my comment at Draft talk:RKS Design.)

":And this raises the perennial question of whether we should rewrite articles like this that have been submitted by obvious coi editors, probably paid editors. In effect, when we rewrite them, we're doing the work of the paid editor, or what they would have done if they had known how to write an article. My own tolerance for rewriting such material has greatly decreased. My current rule is that I will only consider fixing if the absence of an article would lead to an important gap in coverage, and I will only rewrite extensively if all three hold true: a/ the absence of the article would leave a really major disgraceful gap (which could also be reworded as its a subject that anyone would expect to find in an encyclopedia), b/ I am interested enough in the subject; c/ the rewriting isn't too difficult.

But the way we work, anyone can choose to do whatever they like, even if another editor might think it not worth the trouble, or even counter-productive." DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "

Draft: Salam Veterinary Group

Thanks for reviewing my draft Salam Veterinary Group. Please let me know if there's anything I can improve to submit the article. Thanks, Hamad.

there is a chance for an article, for the group's focus on camels is rather unusual, and the claim for "largest" has a decent newspaper source, .

However, it's written in a manner more suitable for a web page than an encyclopedia article . A list of routine services is not encyclopedic content. (I'm aware some other articles of hospitals have them--they were accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower) The main paragraph has many adjectives of praise or importance which amount to puffery.

Sources 4 & 5 are the only ones that give any substantial information, but they #5 in particular seems to be mainly repeating the firm's comments) (by hte way, at least when linked to from the US, the text of both is in English.)

You declare a conflict of interest. If it is a paid conflict of interest as we define it in WP:PAID. you need to be more specific.

If you rewritethe article, let me know and I'll review it. As coi articles go, it's not impossible. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC) .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prince_Pipes_and_Fittings_Limited

Hello DGG,

How could my Draft be not notable? Please search about it on Google. It's literally the leading piping company in India. India is not like US, the financial sector doesn't get much news. You will find Price products everywhere throughout the country. In-depth reports are written about it as referenced. Not to mention, it's a significant achievement for a Piping company in India to have 3000+ crores of revenue. It is certainly more notable than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finolex_Cables.

If there is something wrong with my wordings, please tell me and I will rewrite it.

Please reconsider my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tawianomlet (talk • contribs) 11:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

We judge notability not by market share, or financial size, but by the availabiltiy of substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices . Almost every source in thedraft is either a mere listing, a notice about a routine event, or a press release. Therefor,, there are no reliable sources to write an article.This is explained further at WP:NCORP. In addition, the article is written in a thoroughly promotional manner.

There are many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. The other article you mention has at least one good source, but the separate notability has, in fact, been questioned. I note, fwiw, that they seem to have a considerably higher revenue than you. This is a good example of why someone connected with the company is not in a good position to write an NPOV article. have you want your organization to be a good example, or another bad example? DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Therapyisgood

I note that you have recently written a note on User:Therapyisgood's talk page about references. The reply given to you is about the same as what I received the last time I was doing New Page Patrol in the books NPPSORT - when I used the page curation tool to ask for more references (tags were promptly removed). This user presumes that if there is a review on Book Marks, a stub with one reference can be created here. I sense that this user needs to walk over hot coals and maybe learn what an appropriate attitude is and what might constitute an article. Food for thought. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The venue that is appropriate in WP:RSN, but thid is so much occupied by more important matters that I'm reluctant to bother them. Indirect referencing is sometime necessary, but it certainly isn't for the topics they are working on. (Tho I do mention that it is quite frequent in the German WP, which in other respects is of considerably higher quality than ours). I don't want to reject drafts or send for deletion articles which could easily be sourced properly; nor do I want to myself do the work tof expanding them that the contributor ought to be doing. Let me try once more to explain things to them. Thanks for mentioning that my experience there is not unique, for it gives me confidence to proceed further. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Walther of Aquitaine

DGG, you accepted this draft in short order, but it was an unattributed copy of [[Walter of Aquitaine (with some maintenance templates removed); see the edit summary for the creating edit, referring to a "misspelling". I've now reversed the IP editor's redirection of the original artie while noting the variant spelling (standard in German) at the start of the intro and using "Walter" consistently throughout our prose. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

thanks for the fix. I'll take a more careful look. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Marc Tyler Nobleman

DGG, thanks for your time reviewing this draft. I elaborated on the author's notability by reframing the intro and info on the documentary, adding a bunch more reputable sources (Today Show, Wall Street Journal, NPR, WIRED, etc.) about his leading role in correcting the Batman credit line, and replacing most of the citations to his blog. Fingers crossed! (Sorry.) Robamcnamy (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Tagging drafts for speedy deletion

Hello, David,

I hate to come to you again with another question since you have such a busy user talk page but I'm hoping to get your take on something. What is your philosophy on CSD tagging of draft articles? I seem to see it a lot, especially tags for promotion since many of the regular CSD criteria are not valid in Draft space. But I think there is a rush to tagging and unless the advertising is egregious (or as the criteria states "unambiguous"), Draft space should be a place where editors, especially new editors, can work on pieces and develop them while they are learning their way around Wikipedia policies and practices. It seems like there is a clear difference between drafts that are advertising, that looks like it's being written by company employees or paid editors, and new editors who are learning the ropes about finding sourcing that is independent of the subject.

I guess I bring this question to you because I see this kind of CSD tagging from some longtime editors, not newbies that I can gently guide away from this practice. Your thoughts? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

As you have noticed, I am doing it increasingly: in the present month I have tagged 23 drafts as G11, spam, and all 23 of them have been deleted by some other administrator.--often yourself. . I am therefore a little surprised that you are not sure what I have been tagging is inappropriate, because the responsibility for deletion is the deleting admin--not the tagger. Had you thought any was inappropriate , you could simply have removed the tag, as could any one of the dozens of admins who patrol CSD. Going back thru December, only 2 of my CSD G11 Draft taggings have been removed--one by myself, when I reconsidered, and one by another administrator. (My CSD log shows a few others, but they are cases where after my tagging and another admin's deletion, the draft was reinserted). In that same time, I have removed quite a few G11 CSD tags placed by other editors. The admins who did the deletions have generally been of equal or greater experience than myself, and I can't imagine that they or any admin would be so much in awe of me that they'd delete something when they themselves disagreed, just because it was I who tagged it.

The criteria for promotionalism are , as we both agree, interpreted much less strictly in draft space. As I say to those whose tags I remove, drafts are in draft space because they are intended to be fixed whenever possible, and you say something very similar. But when something is a straightforward advertising copied apparently from a web site or some sort of advertising directory, and the contributor is very probably not in good faith but an undeclared coi editor, and where if the advertising were removed there would be nothing left to build on, and the subject is not one about which it is likely a nonpromotional article could ever be written--the thing to do is remove it, and thus make less work for other reviewers. .

I make a point of patrolling newly entered drafts. At least half of them are when they are entered at least somewhat promotional, and submitted by coi editors, and most of never do get improved sufficiently and accepted, but even of these, most have at least have some potential for improvement. If they've been formally submitted, I decline them for improvement; if they have not yet been, if there's a particular promotional part I sometimes remove it in order to give them a chance.

If you encounter a tagging of mine you disagree with, please let me know at the time, When I make an error in judgment, I want to know about it so I can learn to be more accurate. Over the years, if I have gained any skill at deletion, it's because of the people who have corrected and taught me. . DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)