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

June 2021

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)[reply]

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 -- if anyone -- encounters 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)[reply]

Circling back here, I was not directing this question at you! Not at all. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. Given your long tenure and experience, I take your judgment as unerringly sound and well-informed. That's why I came to get your opinion on this practice. I'm sorry if I conveyed anything other than respect for your opinion. My apologies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever we draw the line, there is always going to be an ambiguous zone, and I have in fact shifted where I draw the line, both for what I tag and for what I delete that others have tagged. So even if you didn't mean to question me, I was aware I was doing things a lttle differently. For you in my reply, that meant not you in particular, but everybody. Nobody's judgement is 100% sound and accurate. Quite apart from the ones that could go either way, I have mistakenly tagged, and mistakenly deleted, and will undoubtedly do so again. I think they are extremely infrequent, maybe 1 in a thousand, but with 47, 000 deletions, that doesn't add up to zero. It is very important that everyone audits each other; apart from errors, people can unknowingly drift a little from the standard. In particular, I regard you as exceptionally accurate, and I think very carefully if it looks like we disagree. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman & Associates draft rewrite

Hello and thanks again for reviewing my Hoffman & Associates draft article. I've made some significant edits based on your feedback. Please take a look and let me know your thoughts when you can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hoffman_%26_Associates

Thanks again. SBCornelius (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC) SBCornelius Looking at the Awards section, I notice almost all of them are local, not national, and many ofthem are awards given to multiple people each yea. You might wantto drastically release or eliminate it. The material on Little City Commons seems out of date. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Hello and I hope all is well. I've had a chance to update the information about the Falls Church development and address your concerns about the Awards section. Please let me know your thoughts. I'd love to go hands-off with this after it's moved to the mainspace and let Wikipedia organically do what it does here. Thanks again for all of your feedback and help.SBCornelius (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Hello again! I wanted to check back and see if you'd had a chance to review my most recent edits. Thanks again for you help.SBCornelius (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SBCornelius . Finally got there, and accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structural/naming requests on OLX

Hi DGG - I have a COI for OLX Group, and have been waiting around a bit to see if anyone has opinions on the major structural reworking I recommended. You seem already very familiar with the page and its history, I was wondering if you might have thoughts? Either way, thanks :) JeanetteM2 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my apologies for not thinking to be more clear - updated my user page, key COI details should be there (and if you're curious for more, would be happy to explain my connections in more detail/nuance). JeanetteM2 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JeanetteM2 In general I no longer respond to edit requests; partly becauseI find the system too cumbersome; partly because I do not see why any volunteer should work to help paid editors earn money, and therefore I feel that paid editing should be not be permitted on WP.

But that's just in general: I've rarely set myself a rule which I do not find reason to sometimes ignore.

Since I've been involved in this previously, I'll help here. As I understand it, you are suggesting expanding the article to be primarily written for the overall group, with section for its various brands, including OLX. This is the sort of change that I almost always suggest for organizations, and sometimes carry out on my own, and I will say so on the page. As for the specifics, I am willing to make the basic changes, but I may not be able to work on the details.--I have too many competing priorities. But I'll try to set it up at least. It will take a few days. As a start, try editing your draft of the history section thematically: acquisitions, de-acquisitions,, and everything else. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email Inbox

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hamza Rehman (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Champion Hamza (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Signatures 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 02:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd edit by you on Alexander Grigorievich Shklyaev?

Hi DGG. I noticed you added an external link to Alexander Grigorievich Shklyaev. Were you trying to add a different link? The site you've added seems to be concerned with Russian motor laws and not about a writer or his critiques. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you're right; I carelessly got the wrong person. Thanks for fixing it. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article

Hello David,

I wonder if you would take a look at this draft article about Paul Fiset in my userspace? I don't normally create medical or microbiology articles, but as he was known to me and the reliable sources indicate he meets notability, I decided to take the plunge. Before moving it to mainspace and nominating it for DYK (concerning his work on the Q fever vaccine), your review is requested. Please feel free to edit, perhaps elaborating on the research into Coxiella burnetii, etc. Thanks in advance! JGHowes ^talk 17:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JGHowes Notable, in this case, by GNG, not Prof. , which is an unusual situation for a career like his. WP:PROF depends on citations and awards, and there is only one highly cited paper, which I added (you may have misssed i because it doesnt show up if you use the full name; Gogle Schoolar is erratic that way--one has to search also with just the initials. Additionally, the references really need to be given in full with all authors-- this is easily done by clicking on the quotation mark icon in Google Scholar, and it turns out he's one a numerous co-authors for most of them. But he has a full editorial obituary in the New York Times, and this is generally considered sufficient proof of notability for anyone, So expand the paper listings, either in the text or as references, and move it to mainspace. You might want to say in the lede paragraph that he received an obit in the NYT, ecause people here have been kown to judge an article without reading it to the end. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI NOTICE

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Yeshiva

Hi DGG. Wondering if you'd object to me removing the original research tag at Yeshiva: the article has changed substantially since then... Thanks. Fintor (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, but let me mention that I I think it might clarify things to be much more explicit about hte differences between the Babylonian talmudic academies and the modern highschools and colleges. The first were definitive judicial bodies deliberating to compile a secondary canon, the second, educational institutions for the traditionally rabbinically oriented public. The name is the same, and the are some weak historical continuities, but the religious and social functions are different. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG. Can you incorporate the material into the history section? Fintor (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

doing it right will be quite a project. I'll try to find time. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Origins_of_COVID-19

Given your past and current involvement in the topic area of COVID-19 origins, I am requesting you to make a statement in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Origins_of_COVID-19. I am also emailing you privately, copying in Doc James, Robert McClenon and Arbcom. Tinybubi (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had already made a statement. But we're about to see another instance of the well known truism, that nobody who goes to arbcom comes out the better for it. The discussion among the arbs so far is how better to do sanctions, which will have the inevitable result as do most Discretionary Sanctions, of permitting the most strongly biased admins to force content the way they want it. There was, by the way, no reason I can see for emailing me privately first. There was nothing confidential in what you wrote to me, and you do not seem to be an editor who might be too shy to speak up in public. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of Daybreakers novel

Hi David, can you tell me what I need to do to get the Daybreakers draft up to an article standard?

Thank you --Slowmusketeer (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to find some sources that deal substantially with this particular novel. The bulk of your article, and your sourcing, deal with Louis L'Amour's work in general. The best course would be to add what you have to the general article if it isn't already there, and expand it to an afticle if you ever find sources/. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

I hate to be a pedant, but I was reading one of your comments at the ArbCom case request and I think you might have made a typo. The passage in question is "The application of Fringe to Covid deals with more than science--I do not see how anyone can realistically say that the issue of its origin is as much political as scientific (which is not a statement that it ought to be political, but just that it is.)" Based on the surrounding context, it seems like this sentence was supposed to say I do not see how anyone can realistically say that the issue of its origin is not as much political as scientific. I wouldn't want to refactor someone else's comment (especially on such a sensitive subject), but I thought you might want to know. jp×g 05:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I'll fix it. I had tried to word that sentence in several different ways, and this is the sort of thing that can happen. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

issue resolve

Hello sir I am the one who created the page for adrenaline gym page, which part are you referring to about being advertising? I will definitely edit it once you notify me. I did not mean to write it as an add I jut tried to write a complete history of gym with as much information as I could find on both facility and coaching staffTsims23 (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

after reading over it, trying to look for it I believe I found what you are talking about, the gym equipment part? I shall remove that but the size of the building isn't advertising is it ?Tsims23 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have compared it with the other articles in the category. It remains more promotional than the others in the following ways--

Other articles give a much more compact list of notable fighters, and do not use a subsection for each of them

Other articles do not use "would train" for "trained" --[etc]. The would form is considered pompous language

Other articles avoid saying things like "He remains as a highly influential figure and an inspiration to members of the gym and the community"

Tsims23 You can remove the tag yourself when you've fixed all this. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i edit it took awa sub sections got rid of words like would, could and capture and all that stuff but i still need to find a way to reword it if possible because he is a highly influential figure and an inspiration to the gym A lot of my reference material, talks about him being crucial any tips on that.Tsims23 (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you can say depends upon the reliability of the sources: whether they're just puffery, or have the reputation for accurate judgements. For example the sentence "He remains as a influential figure and an inspiration to members of the gym " is sourced to their own web site. You need a 3rd party source for something like that. As for some of the other sources, like the Londoner, they just mention the gym. Others are just directories. For details, you need to as at WP:WikiProject Mixed martial arts, r this is not my usual subject area, and my comments are those that would apply to any article about an organization. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying now and for sure I can link it to a 3rd party source its mentioned in almost every ref for the gym itself, in great detail in Ref:Until the last light Leaves London. As the death of Mr.Tompkins nearly caused an end to the gym. I will fix that up

Good DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

still in draft as of Aug. 11

promotionalism example

Hi! Can you please tell me what kind of promotion is done here so i can rectify it.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lexi_Rivera please!! thank you!!

the entire article is promotional for a Utube performer and her family, but the low point was "Lexi claims that her mom is her biggest inspiration." (posted by User: Victoriapastel)

5 other experienced editors, included another administrator and 2 of our most reliable reviewers agree that this is unacceptable. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

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

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

Draft:Sennay Ghebreab

Hi DGG. I've come across another Teahouse question which seems to be a draft for an academic. Since you seem to have a good feel for assessing such drafts, I thought perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at this one before the creator tries to move it to the mainspace themselves. The draft was declined the first time it was submitted to AFC, but has been submitted again. The draft's creator is a WP:SPA (not necessarily a bad thing) but the creator seems to have a fair grasp of Wikipedia formatting, etc. that's not common for a total newbie (which might indicate previous editing experience). The draft was created in pretty much a single edit and submitted to AFC without any supporting references the first time; it was declined, but has been submitted again once references were added. I don't know the AFC protocol about whether seeking further assistance and a review of the draft outside of AFC will be something that's considered "queue jumping", but perhaps you can provide some suggestions to the creator on how to further improve the draft, in addition to those already left by some AFC reviewers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my computer advice

... I also use many windows, most with very many tabs. Fortunately, I've always tried to keep up with new equipment--I enjoy testing the limits. : my experience is that the most reliable browser for multiple windows in safari, at least on a mac. I especially like the feature of adding text shortcuts at a system level, which is faster than add-on programs. . When you can get a new machine my advice is thst the limiting factor is memory, (for images, especially videos, processor speed matters, but I usually just work with text and it matters only when one of the windows has a video or continual updating. ). My most recent machine is a macbook pro with 32 GB. My next will be an imac with 64. replacing one with 16. What I can save on is storage--almost everything I have is either on the cloud, or on WP itself, so 500 GB is more than enough--but it has to be solid state. I'm told I can do just as well with linux, and with much less memory, but tho I used BSD unix long ago, I've forgotten most of it. What I like most about the current mac OS is failure recovery--if it does crash wtih too many windows, and it does, about once a week, , everything always comes back again--this did not use to be the case even 2 or 3 years ago. Good luck, and may the computers keep up with you. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Filipinot@yo^t@lk 02:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This email is about Draft:City Savings Bank

I will take a look, probably next week. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Akintayo's deleted article

Hi, user:DGG.
Good to be in touch with you here. Even though the following article Stephen Akintayo has been repeatedly deleted at instances, the recreation suggested that the article faced such actions in the past, and has been addressed, corrected and improved before it was recreated and furthermore approved into the Wikipedia:mainspace, such reasons include;
1. Article was formally created by a user who almost bears the same name as the topic.
2. Article was formally created by an unprofessional editor
3. Article faced notability issues and that do not meet Wikipedia:SIGCOV
3. article was also tagged promotional article under Wikipedia:PROMO

All of these aforementioned cases however were carefully examined and subsequently treated before article underwent recreation by an entirely different editor and was approved. I hope you will work on retrieving this article as soon as you see this message.

All courtesy duly reserved for you! Mrniger (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

first question--do you have any coi with this or any of the other articles you have written, some of which have been deleted DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shafiqul Islam Shimul MP

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Shafiqul Islam Shimul MP exists in mainspace at Md. Shafiqul Islam Shimul. The new draft was created by someone unhappy with the content of the main article. Their edit summary, "This is Real and Professional Biodata", gives away the fact that this is a resume.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- I had missedthis. I'll check the two. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:William W. Purkey

Hello, DGG. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "William W. Purkey".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you somehow recreated this page after it was deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need to track this down. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging drafts

Hello DGG, I saw your comment at User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 34#merging draft with article and I thought maybe you would know how to help me. Draft:Public image of Donald Trump has not been edited by a human in six months, so I would like to create Public image of Donald Trump using User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump instead, but I would like to preserve the editing history of both. This is complicated because I had created the draft in my userspace due to an IBAN. I have asked other administrators who declined due to being involved, and I have not yet heard back from JBW. Thanks! Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC) typo pinging JBW Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also will not work on this remarkably toxic area. I know that if every sensilble admin says this, it will create a problem, for WP. but I am already dealing with more problems areas than I can handle. What I have done, however, is to make a few small edits to prevent the 6-month deletion. And I comment that might not be the place to repeat a list of his falsehoods, which is elsewhere in WP in [[Veracity ... . DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the response. I wanted the ability to delete the original version of the draft so I'm a bit shocked; I think there may be a miscommunication. I see that I didn't explain my request to delete the draft as I did at User talk:JBW#Move/delete_request for Draft:Public image of Donald Trump. I'm confused about how to proceed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've I think explained one reason I stay far away from this topic area. It's a morass of overlapping drafts and articles. I'm sorry ift his was';t clear, but the topic is closed here, and I will fo back to pretending he never existed. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:31:31, 15 June 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by NastyaAlisina

NastyaAlisina (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Exadel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! My draft for Exadel's page was declined due to a lack of independent sources. However, the current list of references has 40 sources, 90% of which are independent ones and are not owned or managed by Exadel. Can you please double-check this part or provide more specifics about why the current sources do not work? Another reason for declining the draft that was mentioned is that the article partially sounds like an advertisement rather than an entry in the encyclopedia. You probably meant the Products section - I have edited it to sound neutral, please check.

NastyaAlisina (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NastyaAlisina The primary reason for deletion was that it was promotional. It is reasonable to ask you whether you have any connection with the subject, or any of the other subject you have worked on. . Please see our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest: After you respond, I will comment further. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG! Thank you for your comment. I don't have any connection with the subject or any of the other subjects I've previously worked on. As for the draft, could you please tell me if there is anything else in the text that sounds promotional to you so I could rewrite it?

You seem to be telling me that without any coi you decided to werite articles on the company and also on its main product.?? DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grooveshark University

HI DGG. Greetings. I came across this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooveshark_University. In my opinion, this article makes no sense. There is no website live of the subject. Almost all reference links have external title missing. There is no talk page. Google search shows no info on the subject as well. However, this Wikipedia page is live since 2011. I thought of deleting this Wikipedia page. But, was keen to take an expert review on the same before doing it. Could you please take a quick look at this? Thank you in advance. Adamsamuelwilson (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem reasonable to nominate at AFD. But WP notability depends entirely on references. Be sure to first check if there are any available substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices, and explain how the present references are not satisfactory. Take note that errors in formatting references are not a reason for deletion; neitheri s the fact that the subject may no longer be active. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fran’s Chocolates

Hello, I created an article, Fran’s Chocolates, which was speedily deleted because it supposedly looked like an advertisement. I feel that the article meets notability guidelines and had asked for it to be draftified if it was deleted. Is it possible you can recover and draft the page for me to work on? Mukedits (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mukilteoedits OK, maybe it isn't hopeless, even though both I snd another even more experienced reviewer thought it was. However, I would suggest that it is more likely to pass afd if it is considerably briefer, wither fewer sources. Try to be selective bout the awards also, and consider whether details of street location aren't more appropriate for google, which deals very nicely with such content for those who want to be a customer. Content aimed at prospective customers is advertising. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Flynn Capers draft

Hi, a few questions about the delate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cynthia_Flynn_Capers which was in part for notability- on your profile page you state that "“a full professor at a major research university is almost certain to be notable, and will almost always meet at least one of the provisions of WP:PROF”" which Dr. Capers certainly was. She also has some firsts that would also argue for notability- there are certainly male and Black male "firsts" such as Nathan Mossell where it's not immediately apparent how the notability threshold is passed. Probably is the case that NPOV could be improved, but the non-notable determination doesn't seem justifiable. (comment by User:Richardjames444)

Richardjames444 possibly she should be not judged by the standards of research faculty (and, FWIW, University of Aktron is R2, not R1, and thus a minor research university)., but as an educator--that would still fit under WP:PROF. . So I think she might be notable, enough , and I've changed the decline reason to just NPOV. The draft is much too personal. Rewrite it for a general audience, who cares about her public accomplishments, not her personal motivations. Avoid language such as "a career in healthcare, specifically nursing, because she felt it fit her best", or jargon like "important learning experiences" or puffery like "prestigeous" Give her sequence of degrees and positions with dates, but you need not account for minor details. Do not include minor or student awards. For the research section, avoid vagueness, but remember she is not primarily a researcher. Don't overgeneralize "Through this research, Capers discovered a social group’s definition of mental illness related more to education and access to healthcare rather than race" --her work is relevant, but one study alone does not show this. And avoid duplication between the education and the career section. When you're ready, let me know here on my talk page and I will re-review. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

now in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Truck draft

Dear Mr Goodman, I created the Fred Truck draft which was rejected months ago for inclusion in the main English Wikipedia. Obviously I think he is notable (particularly for his early work with Carl Loeffler), and I was pleased to see your recent comment that he is "almost certainly notable". Would you have any suggestions about how I might be able to get this article accepted? Thanks for any hints! PopePompus (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IPopePompus, I kept it from automatic deletion, not declined it. I've adjusted a little and accepted it, but please replace the "other museums and galleries in the USA and Japan" with specifics. Be aware also that the copy of his artwork which is asserted to be original work submitted by the artists is possibly going to be challenged. Also be aware that the write up in the Smithsonian was previously published in Fall 2020 (vol. 59, no. 2) of the Archives of American Art Journal, published by the University of Chicago Press, and is therefore possibly copyright.--it is certainly behind a paywall. In case it might be, it would be wise to rewrite any content copied from there. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing news 2021 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor. The key results were:

Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

SDZeroBot down

Hi, David,

It looks like the usually reliable SDZeroBot is down. Bot operator SD0001 is not on Wikipedia constantly like some of us so I sent him an email as well as a talk page message. I've asked him if he can get the bot working, could he please run User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon today because, at least for me, it's the report I most rely upon. If it doesn't happen, then we won't have a list of drafts that will hit their 6 month mark on June 23, 2021. With Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions acting all wonky, I really rely on SDZeroBot to fill that void so it's bad news to have them both malfunctioning.

I left another message for ProcastinatingReader now that the category is down to 478 drafts and he advised me to go to Wikipedia:Bot requests so I posted a request for help there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, SDZeroBot was out of commission for 12 hours but just returned. It typically runs its G13 reports at 00:00 UTC and those are still missing. I asked SD0001 if he could rerun them and I guess we'll see. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that bot request seems to have worked. The Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions is at 4,486 drafts! I'll try to find out what did the trick in case this happens again. We don't have a User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon report for June 23rd but hopefully you can make use of the G13 eligible soon category instead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David, I pinged you to the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Help needed but I'll also post a message here asking you to look it over so you are informed about the situation with this AFC G13 category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Forgotten Ambassador in Cairo

I'm interesed in why you unreviewed this article. Thank you. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear whether th enotability is in the person, or the book. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Second Harvest of Silicon Valley

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Second Harvest of Silicon Valley, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Minh Nguyễn ^💬 15:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it will probably be kept, tho it isn't really encyclopedic , so I'm not oing further with it. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Political posturing, Kabuki dance

Hello, DGG. You recently removed the {{merge to}} from Draft:Political posturing. It may be appropriate, then, for you to close the discussion at Talk:Kabuki dance#Proposed merge of Draft:Political posturing into Kabuki dance, and also remove the companion template from Kabuki dance. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still need to check this. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gelesis100

Hello, you recently tagged the article Gelesis100 with Cleanup-PR and POV tags. I've worked on it some more, and believe I have addressed those issues. If you have the time and interest, please have a look. I welcome your thoughts and feedback. Rytyho usa (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wi;l get there in day or two. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE

(from User talk:Ken Tony)

[WP:THREE]] is not a policy of the encyclopedia like [[WP:NPOV], which "have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow." (from WP:POLICY sldo implies thee can be special situations where we do not follow them exactly as written; it is not a guideline like WP:GNG which gives "best practices supported by consensus. [which] editors should attempt to follow," though "occasional exceptions may apply". It is not even an essay, which is "opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established" (though the degree of acceptance can vary widely--some are treated as guidelines in some areas of the encyclopedia). It's a usespace essay, which is a personal statement, sometimes one that might even contradict widespread consensus"

it is RoySmith's opinion or advice, which in this case not just they, but a number of other editors give it as their advice also. As written, it's not a statement of either the minimum or maximum number of references, butt a strategy for writing an article that might be challenged at AfD--its original purpose is to discourage using an excessive numbers of references just repeating each other or dealing with unrelated points, which can just confuse people. The typical use of it is for someone at AfdD to ask, what are the Three really best references that establish notability . It often focusses the discussion. It's also used by some editors as advice at AfC--make sure that there are three unmistakably good references, and the article is likely to be accepted at AfC and be kept if there's an AfD, if there are no other problems like promotionalism or copyvio or original research. I use it to give the advice–before you even start writing make sure you have three good references--it's usually better than to first write the article and only then look for references.

Having 3 references doesn't mean it will always pass afd, if they're not really reliable independent substantial sources. Having only one will sometimes pass afd, if it establishes something that is always considered notable . Having none at all is never acceptable, for without references an article fails the fundamental policy WP:V, for there is no way to verify it.

There's another fundamental policy, WP:IAR , which says to do what will be "improving the encyclopedia ". I usually restate as "we make the rules; we can make the exceptions". What is necessary at WP is to follow consensus, which can and does vary. A blind reliance on the written rules does not determine how we in practice interpret and use them. (And all of what I've said here is my advice, the way I would word things. I think it's good advice, for I try to be conservative in offering advice. But other's opinions may differ. ) User:DGG 14:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I'd add is that you should read User:RoySmith/Three best sources/notes. -- (User:RoySmith)

DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Carlos Villapudua

This is not the first time that you have submitted a draft that had been sitting in draft space limbo for just under six months. I infer that you have a query, and that you do a quick check. You may have noticed that this one had political notability, or at least that he might be notable. In this case, there was already a stub in article space, and I have tagged the draft to be merged into the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon , I normally use the Category, AfC G13 eligible soon submissions . My principal activity these days is systematically checking it for items about to be deleted for not being worked on for 6 months, that might be worth rescuing and are in a field where I can work. If I think it good enough as is, I submit it, and occasionally it does turn out that there is already an article. Sometimes it's an independent article, sometimes it results from an out-of-process move of the draft into mainspace without redirecting the draft to the new article or its talk page. At the moment the easiest way to check is to submit and see if it bring up the message. , and I can then either see that a merge is needed, or delete or redirect the draft. Possibly I should check first, but the frequency is so low that it's easier the indirect way I do it. Where I should check first is when I'm going to be making improvements to the draft before accepting it for it would save the trouble. of having to merge or redo them.

What would be in principle better is if the system indicated this on the face of the draft, but this would require automatically checking new articles to see if there were corresponding undirected drafts and dealing with them, which is probably too complicated to be worthwhile.

But I wonder--when we accept a draft, the history transfers automatically, so why do we bother making the redirect from it to the article or talk page? DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, to answer your question, why do we bother making the redirect from it to the article? We always normally make a redirect when a page is moved, unless the mover has the right to suppress the redirect. So I am not sure that I understand the question. On rare occasions I would like to be able to suppress the redirect when accepting a draft, but in those cases I move the redirect and tag it for G6. Second, after the draft is submitted, it displays whether there already is either an article or a redirect in article space. But that is only after the draft is submitted. Third, in this case, the draft and article are independent, presumably both based on reliable sources that reported the subject's election to the California General Assembly. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

about the redirect, yes, I know the move function is arranged to normally make the redirect, because it usually makes sense in changing the name of a topic to a different form or expression; but when it's used by itself one can check a box to omit the redirect. I do not think it makes sense to make a redir. when moving a draft to mainspace (unless of course the title is changed). If we can set up the AFCH macro differently, we should.

And I of course know that it only displays after it's submitted. I'm saying we should get it show earlier. That's why it would have been better for the person making the article on Dec 28 to have seen there was already a draft to start from, which had been written Dec 18. (It would have been best, of course, for it to have been accepted right after it was made, since the ed. who made it never thought to actually submit it, which is why I also patrol newly written drafts when I can, not just the ones which have been submitted, ) I know how it currently works-- and I'm saying it should work better. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short AfC review

Hello! I am quite new to Wikipedia and I wrote my first article yesterday. Would you mind reviewing it? I'd be really pleased. The article is quite short and thoroughly researched. It is about a Rector of a University of Applied Sciences in Germany: Draft:Anne Lequy. I think the article could be interesting for you and it kinda fits your expertise. Some citations and sources are in German but this shouldn't be a problem for you since you have German language skills too. Some other users already made helpful comments and edits. I would love to hear your suggestions for improvement. Lmqay (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC) Lmqay, our normal practice is that everyone waits their turn. I apologize that it might take a few weeks to months, but we do not have enough reviewers, especially reviews able to deal properly with this sort of article. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure! That's fine, i'll just wait Lmqay (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it has since been accepted. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

declined speedy - Boatsetter

Hi DGG. I declined the speedy nomination because in the history is a version which isn't blatant advertising. Or not as blatant, anyway. Not sure it's notable, etc, but wanted to let you know. By current references it looks marginal. AfD, maybe? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tried afd, trying again. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]