User talk:DGG/Archive 180 Jan. 2022

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

Second thoughts?

A few years back, you approved the draft on Wei Biao Wu. Could I ask on what basis you feel he meets either WP:ACADEMIC or more general notability criteria? Thanks. DS (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC) DragonflySixtyseven , meets WP:PROF as shown by influence in his field, demonstrated the usual way by citations to his works -- in mathematics, which is one of the field with the least citations, he had at the time, Dec. 31, 2019, papers with 358, 295, 196, 156, ..., which are 2 papers with > 200 citations. I took the opportunity to update it: there are a number of additional highly cited papers which I added, and as of Dec 31, 2021 the citations for the highest are: 485, 341, 235, 199, 194, 172. This even shows continuing impact on the field, not that it's a requirement. . For those who think h is a valid measure of significance, GScholar shows h=38.[reply]

Did y�ou think the 2019 counts were too low to show impact? DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I always forget citation count. Thanks. DS (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination

You deserve a thank you!

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

-- Wil540 art (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Texas History Movies

Was this really ready for mainspace? The "..." in the text suggest that the editor hadn't finished creating it as an article. But I've stubsorted it anyway: I might have moved it to draft, until I spotted that you'd moved it out of draftspace. PamD 10:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history--it's not what it may seem: I found much better and more obvious sources than the author had done, and they had last worked on it or on WP at all --in July, The ... are my own, and indicate not that it was unfinished, but that I was abridging a sentence in a source, a source that I had just found, and just added, The version before I found that source would never have made it in mainspace; with it, it might. There's potential for very considerable expansion, but mainspace is the better location. If the author had still been around, i would have done differently. This draft was an interesting example of where something will never get approved in draft space unless it happens to catch someone's eye--like my own.Fortunately, I try to look at every draft except sports and pop culture and the internet before they get deleted. by G13, (I could have of course expanded it myself, but if I did thaI couldn't keep up woth finding thef five percent of G13-liable that shouldn't be deleted. It's admittedly a compromise to not do more, but nobody else screens the ones I do at G13 eligible soon. DGG ( talk ) 11:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have looked further ... it just looked a bit of a mess (well, a lot of a mess, really) when I came to stubsort it. Have now used the various sources, upgraded the refs, added it to Jaxon's article (wasn't sure at first whether this JJ was any of those on the Jack Jackson dab page, as the dates looked wrong, but the Toonopedia article confirms the identity, pleasingly). Once upon a time I was trying to have a Wikibreak ... can't stay away. Stubsorting can lead into all sorts of interesting rabbit-holes. Best wishes for a Happy and Healthy 2022. PamD 16:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the "..." in at least the start of the text, and the "a a" aren't your own, but were in the original version, created by an IP! No matter. PamD 17:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mahmud Muhieddine Barmada review

Hi David, thank you so much for your feedback on Mahmud Muhieddine Barmada. I have resubmitted the article for your review based on your feedback. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasouhq (talk • contribs) 12:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Second Hundred Years' War on a "History and geography" 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 10:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Email sent

David - I sent you an email through the link here. Hope you received it, and look forward to a reply.

Best wishes Tvoz/talk 06:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, received and answered DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Tvoz/talk 21:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Andrea Unger - Submission Declined - Part 3

Hello DGG, this is a kindly reminder of my Draft review.

I don't want to bother you at all... I'm writing you just because you told me "tomorrow" 2 weeks ago.. and I just think you forgot.

I refer to this section: [[1]]

This is the Draft: [[2]]

Best wishes, Angio92 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angio92 I have commented. I' not going to review again, because I would decline again, and it will be fairer to let someone else do the next review. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citizen_Lab, you were the first one to not simply vote "keep", you noticed that there was a lot of promotional content and voted "delete or rewrite". I probably would have simply voted "keep" if I didn't read your reasoning. I believe that a major problem on Wikipedia is that many articles have good reliable sources, but also have lots of undue content, first-person sources, and so on. It takes a lot of work to properly clean these articles up, so in many cases, the sources keep piling on. Yleventa2 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grid Dynamics company article to be created - status inquiry

Hi DGG, I was referred to you by FormalDude on a proposed article, Grid Dynamics in the Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies/F-L#G section. I'm sorry to bother you on this, but it has been about 6 months since I submitted the article and I was wondering if there were any status updates on it or if I needed to provide more information/references for it to be completed. Thank you and I hope you had a great New Year! CorporateDrone456 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I must tell you that an article is unlikely. The list of requested articles is provided so people can make suggestions for articles, including people with a conflict of interest such as yourself. Wikipedia is a completely decentralized volunteer operation. Every individual volunteer wikipedia editor chooses individually what topics they wish to work on, based on their own interests. Whether the article will be made, depends on whether any of the volunteer editors should judge that an acceptable article is possible and should want to make it.

In practice, it is quite rare that an article listed on Requested Articles will actually be made, especially for companies.. The only practical way to get an article on your company is be to wait until it is so well-known, and has so many accessible third party reliable sources, that a volunteer editor will want to write an article about it. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well, thank you for the information, I appreciate it. I suppose I will have to look into alternatives. CorporateDrone456 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Department of Human Development moved to draftspace

Hi! Thank you for your feedback on the Draft: Cornell Department of Human Development. I just wanted to ask for some clarification about how to make it suitable for publication because I used the Harvard Department of Social Relations as a template for building the page and the two read fairly similar to me. Thank you in advance for any help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVRhistory (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might try removing the the duplication, especially about Brofenbrenner. I'm not sure about the section on the current major. Then, we don't usually list notable scholars that don't have WP articles: the bios have to be written and accepted here first. And the Harvard article isn't all that good either. It too lists people we don't yet have bios for. Some of it is based on an unpublished undergrad thesis. We have a great many inadequate articles from early years that might not meet current standards.

But taking another look, I think I shall make some copyedits, and then accept it and let you fix it further. I very much urge you to write the missing bios. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Elisabeth Münster Halvari

Please would you take a few moments to assess whether this person meets our notability requirements. As always I trust your opinion in matters of academe. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there.thanks for the notice. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was not as straightforward as it might have been to reach a conclusion. Thank you for taking the time. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H. Lewis

Me again, with academic questions :) This one isn't totally random as you're at least in the ancient history declining a PROD. Hope your 2022 is off to a warm and healthy start. I found this article cleaning out a backlog and he's definitely well cited enough for academic criteria, and he was the department chair (unclear if it's named). So my question isn't notability, but whether it's OK as it stands or I need to find further reviews of his books. Thanks either way! And yes, fairly sure he's dead based on Tulane listing his email as "Rip" but that's an OR step too far so I've left it as if he's alive. Star Mississippi 19:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly notable. 8 Academic books, all published by reputable academic presses, all of them reviewed in reliable sources, all held in hundreds of libraries. Meets the requirements for both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC) ,[reply]

Thanks on the library holdings piece. I hadn't thought to check that one, but glad it's an additional confirmation of the notability I assumed. Is that something that needs to be added, or WorldCat in authority control is sufficient? Thanks again Star Mississippi 19:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a formal criterion. The reviews in RSs are enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. I've also started adding the number of citations in Google Scholar, even for books. It turns out to be useful. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, as always. Your insight into all things academic have been really helpful as I work through the notability backlogs from 2010-2012. Most of Lewis' books were already in the article when I found it, but the tip about initials on a prior inquiry helped me find some where he was cited/credited as PH Lewis that I might have otherwise missed. I generally think those who took the time to enter themselves/professors into Wikipedia in those days pre perception of it as a social media listing are notable, but sometimes it's a treasure hunt. He was fairly easy though, especially as I know the field. Stay warm and dry! Star Mississippi 21:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G13s these days

Hello, David,

Our stale draft lists are mammoth these days which I attribute to AFC July 2021 Backlog Drive taking place six months ago. Things started out normal enough at the beginning of January but now we have daily lists of close to 300 or 300+ expiring drafts which I can imagine is a lot of articles to scan through. I'm guessing that things will ease up as we move to the end of the month and the AfC reviewers got caught up with their backlog of drafts to examine.

I hope you had a nice holiday season and that the new year is starting off well for you! Here in the Northwest, we got more than our usual amount of snow (which is not that much compared to back East) but it's back to rain, rain, rain now that we have entered 2022. Take care, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as for drafts, i'm 1 1/2 days ahead of the deadline at Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions, and I see what's coming. I already skip sports, popular music, entertainment, and internet content--where I wouldn't be competent anyway. I'm about to start skipping sub-national elected politicians, altho notable and sourceable, because someone will add them eventually in a more systematic manner. I'm planning to skip trying to look at computer hardware and software, geography, and transportation, again because someone will probably add them eventually if justified.

the weather here, just as expected by climate change theory, has been increasingly chaotic. As an indicator, I watch the catalogs of the major mail order outdoor clothing suppliers try to cope with unpredictable lack of seasonality. And NYC is once more, as it was at the beginning, the national hotspot for Covid. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news about all of the snow and the COVID-19. Cases are increasing here, too, but the hospitals seem to be managing and that's what's important to me, that our health care system doesn't implode! But I've been looking for test kits since the fall and they are nowhere to be found in the pharmacies here.

You know, it's interesting, I'm looking ahead at drafts as well but while you are picking out the more promising draft articles that can be fixed, I'm looking for the absolute junk that shouldn't be restored as G13s at REFUND. A few days ago, I started a discussion at WT:CSD about all of the promotional drafts I see from young people who are creating profiles of themselves. They aren't really advertising, like the LinkedIn pages some folks create, they just don't seem to understand what an encyclopedia is for...they set up an Instagram account, a Facebook page and try to create a Wikipedia article on themselves while they are at it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way I use for preventing automatic refund is to add a G11 to the G13 when deleting. It's less overhead than protecting against re-creation and one doesn't have to be an admin to do it; the editors dealing with refunds recognize the G11 quite reliably. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz One contributory factor to the "Personal drafts" of arbitrary quality is Twitter's blue tick. One the the verification criteria is for the person who wishes for blue tick verification to have a 'stable' Wikipedia page that conforms to Wikipedia rules. Aspiring Twits seek verification. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the thing to do with autobio drafts that are descriptive rather than blatantly promotional is to move them to the user page if there is no user page already--some of them seem to actually have been intended for that.

But looking at the Twitter rules [3], it would appear that only a mainspace article would count, not draft space, so people entering hopeless wweak aticles in draft won't get anywhere. The problem will be more at NPP, and an extra effort will be necessary thee to make sure that all non-notable people or organization are deleted or draftified. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we see in drafts wannabe verified twits Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and @DGG feel free to ping me on sports or entertainment ones, happy to try and help. I ignore music when clearing out the notability backlog, so I feel your pain. Stay warm and safe Star Mississippi 14:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Histories of Central, East, and Southern Africa 3

Hello, DGG. I hope all is well with you. As it has been several months since our first and second time speaking of it, would it be possible for you to please at least restore these drafts within the next few days? Daniel Power of God (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iwill take a look sometime this week; thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I. haven't forgotten. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Power of God , I'm still thinking about it, but how to best deal with the material is complicated. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, after the drafts were initially submitted and rejected, the rejected drafts were brought up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa and Talk:History of Africa. If I recall correctly, the rejected drafts were further developed from their initially submitted versions, bearing in mind the critiques of the rejected drafts, and then resubmitted for rereview. Within approximately two days of the discussion being opened, the drafts apparently had already been deleted. It does not seem that there was much time given for discussion of the drafts. In our second discussion about the deleted drafts, you stated: "What I will do tomorrow is restore them as drafts and look at them. What they will need to become separate stand-alone articles is 1) to have considerably more detail than the corresponding section in the main article; it is also necessary that the main article not be so long that it could not accommodate the additional material. After I have a chance to look, I'll let you know my advice." If you begin with restoring the drafts to the draftspace, this would make way for both additional improvements to the restored drafts as well as discussion for how to proceed with the restored drafts. Would it be possible for you to please at least restore these drafts within the next few days? Daniel Power of God (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

from a talk page discussion

WP sometimes seems like a game where one tries to outargue one's opponents. It shouldn't be. It's certainly not a game where the goal is o- maneuver one's opponent.

It might instead be a game where one tries to find more good references than an opponent, or write better articles, or write articles so strong that nobody who might dislike them could possibly remove them DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

David,

I have a favor to ask. I'm deleting some truly bad drafts that you have appropriately tagged for deletion. But, unfortunately, in your tagging, there are not notifications being posted to the talk pages of these very new editors, most of whom do not have existing user talk pages.

So, can I ask you to check your Twinkle Preferences and make sure that a) the "Notify page creator" box is checked and b) all CSD criteria boxes are checked off? I'm not sure why this is, but I think the default in Twinkle is to only have a few CSD criteria, like A7 and G11, to be checked when really, it doesn't matter what the reason is for deletion, the page creator should be notified. There are even a few criteria, like G7, that, even if you select them, Twinkle won't post a notification for which just seems inane to me.

My primary interest in this is my hope that if a new editor knows that a "nonsense article" or "advertising page" has been spotted and deleted, they might be less likely to create another one. This hope might be misplaced but I'm hoping that engaging the editor through talk page notices might get them to stop making silly or joke articles. Any way, thanks if you could double-check your Preferences. If I could get Twinkle developers to make notifications opt-out instead of opt-in, I would be a happy camper!

Stay warm! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check. But sometimes when there's someone deliberately being foolish and just playing with us, I like the idea of WP:IGNORE. I think the nonsense are likely to be single events in any case. I've done it both ways, and I'm not sure which is best. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New essay I wrote on the proportional role of Wikipedia

Back when I was blocked, I was also mostly quarantining. As a result, I began to realize how often Wikipedia appears everywhere. It is the largest encyclopedia, but it is still only one encyclopedia. Read more at WP:MONOPOLY. Yleventa2 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOR wines

I am also posting a note to you here as I don't know how far to the bottom you want it. I would like to ask you to reconsider the edits you made to Tor wines (removing the new listing). I have been posting to Wikipedia for years and it was a valid entry. Thanks, Liza Liza Zimmerman (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.Liza Zimmerman There's already Draft:TO Wines at [4] Do you mean to replace this with your new draft? If so, Ican do that. But it hadthe same problems as the previous one,, "After winning the PGA Championship, Golfer Phil Mickelson drank Tor Kenward’s TOR Black Magic red blend from the Wanamaker Trophy in June 2021, and the story ran in..., driving sales of TOR’s Black Magic’s brand["

Please make a declaration of whether you have any coi with respect to this draft, paid or unpaid. if paid, remember to specify as required at p[[:WP:PAID[[ Afteryou do, i can give you some further advice. `

(And the place to put responses to people is either fdirectly after their previous comment, or all the way at the end. ) DGG ( talk ) 11:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David, I would like to replace the first draft with the second one. If you feel strongly about removing the Mickelson mention, we can. However I did attribute it to reliable sources. I am a wine writer by profession, so yes I have interviewed the owner of Tor before. What further advice would you have to share? Best, Liza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liza Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there to look at it-- it will take a few days.

Liza Zimmerman, I have not forgotten. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DGGIn the mean time the drafts have been declined by @Deb. See @Liza Zimmerman's talk for further discussion. Star Mississippi 14:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

Senkaku islands
Waldorf education
Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Scientology
Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

I see you dealt with the Draft:Beirut Hellfire Society (Novel) article/draft (thanks!). For the future, should I tag these with G4 for speedy deletion when they are practically identical copies of drafts? It feels like this is a somewhat scuffed way to use this deletion rationale, but it probably is correct? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skarmory, I'm still working on it--see the message on the user's talk page. This sort of duplication usually arises when a contributor moves a draft by themself, without using the AFC process. The AfC process and the AFCH macro that runs it are a weird implementation devised over many years, and there are many peculiarities. They are technically permitted to do such a move if the draft is acceptable, but it causes all sorts of confusion, and it is often the case that the draft was not ready to be accepted, and , sometimes, as here, that there are other serious problems.

If there are no problems , the correct procedure is to replace the text in the draft with a redirect to the article to preserve attribution. But to decide this, an experienced AfC reviewer needs to check it. If there are problems, there is similarly a need for it to be checked. The best way is to leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk -- it's designed for people having problems with their own draft not getting accepted, but it can be used for this also. Or ask an experienced reviewer. If there are major problems, it is likely to involve deletion, so it helps to start with an admin.

I do a mix of NPP and AFC . After you get a few months of experience at NPP, you might want to considered applying for AFH permission. They are fundamentally simpler, tho the procedures and the interaction with users at AFC can be considerably more difficult. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll throw these over at WT:AFC from now on until I get more experience as opposed to tagging for CSD. This time, I specifically requested CSD because I saw the draft had been declined and it was practically the same article (I didn't even realize there was a difference until your message on their talk page), so for future cases like that which CSD criterion should I use?

In terms of applying for AFH; I actually did shortly before this reply. I don't know whether it'll get accepted (I suspect not based off this reply), but I did apply based off the fact that I have draftified articles before and I can't really do the opposite. If that gets declined, I'll probably only draftify articles that are egregiously non-article worthy but that I wouldn't tag for CSD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I was trying to say, some of the procedures involving drafts are poorly designed, many can be applied various ways, some few have no generally accepted method, but are handled empirically--and for some, different experienced reviewers have contradictory opinions about what to do. There's a great deal of WP in this condition, because the systems evolved in layers, and is trying to work with methods designed when we were much smaller and more homogenous-- but AFC is one of the most confusing of all. the way to lean this is to work with the simple cases, and leave the more complicated ones till later. I try to tell you and others who ask what is the generally accepted method, in a conservative way. But sometimes there is no generally accepted method, and many of the experienced people use shortcuts that may not be strictly justified by anything written.

There is no unambiguous way of handling situations like this. Some experienced admins rely on G6, but the expansive use of this (or any of the speedy criteria) would be a dangerous thing to do for anyone starting out here. (That in fact is the general rule for speedy--do not use it if in any doubt whatever.)

Part of the problem is that what should be done depends upon the motivations of the person we're dealing with as much as the article. There's one way for beginners who make errors, and another for coi editors who are trying tricks, and yet a third for UPED and their sockpuppets.It is not always obvious which of these an editor is. To see how we handle the differences, watch WP:COIN, WP:Deletion review, and similar places. The first step I always recommend in to join in some afd discussions and watch what happens. In my view, that's where the real action is. Other people prefer whatever it is they know best. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]