DGG,
I see the Chad Robichaux page has been nominated for deletion. You stated that, "promotional bio. full of puffery and uncited praise. The athletic career does not seem to meet the requirements,and there is nothing else substantial. I would not have accepted this from AfC."
Thank you for your feedback on the article. I made some edits to the page to remove any puffery. It don't understand, however, your other reasons for this being deleted. Can you help me? As I read the biography for living person page this seems to fall in line with the requirements and the coverage doesn't fall under "routine coverage" as described.
You are the expert, so however I can learn and make this page better I will gladly hear. 2017?
User:Informant16/Post-presidency of Harry Truman
User:Informant16/Post-presidency of Richard Nixon
User:Informant16/Senate career of Bernie Sanders
User:Informant16/Senate career of Ted Cruz
User:Informant16/United States Senate career of Orrin Hatch
User:Informant16/United States Senate career of William Proxmire
You stood out as the sole user who I thought may be possibly amendable on this whole draft article ordeal. Part of the reason I've chosen to not continue it is a belief that nothing I produce, at least by myself, will be satisfactory to the detractors and cynics who have opposed some of my past additions and for whom I was confident would resume this pattern. I did want to ask what qualifies a person to receive a sub article; do the Early life of Frank Sinatra and Early life of Joseph Stalin exist because the main articles are long? I've found myself perplexed by that question since that happen, and I'm seeing fit to live with the mystery. Informant16 June 2, 2017
Back in the day (Nov. 2013), you stated in an AfC comment that the subject is notable and that the page needed cleanup (diff). So, I cleaned it up and published it in main namespace just now. Feel free to improve the article further. North America1000 16:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
all it needs now is 1/removal of some adjectives and phrases that constitute puffery, 2/or that could be seen as espousing a political view, 3/removing inserting some links to relevant WP articles, 4/Clarifying 4.1, which implies but does not say that the first generation parents resisted or wanted to resist, 5/ clarifying section 4.2 by saying in the text as coming from the California oral history project & making it an indented quote, 6/ removing or sourcing multiple sentences of opinion and 7/Finding some references that come from other sources than Omura and Toland.
It makes no difference how strongly you or I agree with the his political viewpoint. If we used WP to advocate our own beliefs, we'd end up the same as Conservapedia. You may possibly think that in the current political situation in the US and some other countries, all honest citizens should feel themselves called upon to undertake action, or at least write polemics. I would probably support this as a valid position, but the advocacy does not belong on WP. The role of WP in fighting actual or potential tyranny is now and always to write objective articles in purely dispassionate language. At WP we present the facts, trusting the readers to themselves draw the proper conclusions, not to tell the reader what conclusions they ought to draw.
To avoid misunderstanding, I think the WMF, as distinct from the encyclopedia, can appropriately play a political role in defense of its values, and I support its past and present actions and statements. And, also to avoid misunderstanding, there may indeed come a time when dispassionate reporting is hopeless, and direct opposition is the only possible course. But the two should not be confused. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I came across 501 7th Avenue, SeaRise Office Tower, and 111 West 33rd Street and originally thought that it was a paid promotional editor and so put a paid editing notice on the creator's user talk page. Looking a bit closer at the user's created articles, it seems that they might actually be trying to spread information about Qatari owned businesses that have terrorist funding connections, and have created several BLPs/recent deaths that make terrorist funding/terrorism claims too: Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, Ismail al-Salabi, Mohammed bin Hashim al-Awadhy. I'm not sure how great the sourcing is on the BLPs, but given the sensitive nature of the topic and a near laser focus on it, it raised my eyebrows. You deleted Pamodzi Sports Marketing as G11, and since that was the last deletion on the talk page, and I know you have experience with COI type subjects, I thought I would get your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have generally thought most large buildings in major cities notable, though it is difficult to say an exact size, and it will depend on the city.
Searise & W33rd St are I thing large enough; 7th Ave isn't but it was built by a famous architect. But what we really need is an article for the company that owns them (and the Empire State Building), Empire State Partners (formerly Empire State Realty Trust), which is mentioned in the Empire State building article); it is a NUYSE company and has an interesting history. None of this of course answers the question of whether we should keep articles on notable subjects by undeclared paid promotional editors. I've been arguing that we should not--for those that are so notable as to be essential, someone else can rewrite them -- after a gap, because there is no other way to convince people that it is not helpful to pay for an article. If your suggestion is correct, it's still by a promotional editor, because it's advocacy which is considered as promotionalism , but that isn't considered nough reason for deletion, if the subject is notable just for revision unless it's so bad that revision is hopeless and it falls under G11.
I'll look at the BLPs tomorrow. The sourcing is,as you say, not great, but I think they would pass AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at this please. I've prodded it because I'm sure it's an amalgam of chunks of text text copied from the one source that's used but I don't have the book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, did you notice there's a snippet view of the book on Google Books? It's not great but maybe good enough to scan for copyvio.
(later) Oops, maybe not - it's volume 1 and the article uses volume 2 or 3. Anyway here's the link [1]. - Bri (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpng, it cannot simultaneously be OR and copyvio. And if it is not copyvio, then I do not see it as OR, but the summary of information based on a book with other sources used as well.Thestyle, with the long quotations, and the manner of referencing, suggests that it's a term paper. The snippet view is useless, it's from a quotation in the book. I tried other phrases, only ones from the quotation bring up the book. I suspect its in part a paraphrase., at least as far as organization goes. It covers a narrower scope than the current title; I moved it to American Jewish Anti-Bolshevism during the Russian Revolution. I think the way to proceed is to list it at Copyright problems DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting in cased you missed my request. Do you have access to the PayU India text, and if so, can you email it to me? I'll take a shot at fixing it and will submit it to AfC, and will let you know here when it's up. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 18:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You stood out as the sole user who I thought may be possibly amendable on this whole draft article ordeal. Part of the reason I've chosen to not continue it is a belief that nothing I produce, at least by myself, will be satisfactory to the detractors and cynics who have opposed some of my past additions and for whom I was confident would resume this pattern. I did want to ask what qualifies a person to receive a sub article; do the Early life of Frank Sinatra and Early life of Joseph Stalin exist because the main articles are long? I've found myself perplexed by that question since that happen, and I'm seeing fit to live with the mystery. Informant16 June 2, 2017
'still needs reply
Hello DGG. I understand your concerns and the reasons for placing warning tags. I also believe you are willing to hear my clarifications. I was not aware that in the course of a discussion I should not make edits. I did this in good faith to improve the article and bring more references. Being new to the Wikipedia protocols and technicalities might have resulted in what messily appears as “disruptive edits”. In real-life I am an academic specializing in philosophy. I do not have a connection with the subject of the article, but I am intellectually interested in his research and of other academics in the field. I used to make occasional edits in philosophy on Wikipedia without adopting a name. I had a bit of time after the end of the semester this summer to contribute to Wikipedia. One of my motives was an incident with a graduate student who used Wikipedia as reference and resulted in negative evaluations of the thesis as per the criteria of reputable universities. Given that I occasionally follow the news of the Wikipedia article being discussed, and those of other academics in related fields, I was concerned about a deletion request being made by a user who did not specialize in academia. I hence became engaged in the process. Given that I am new to this, I tried to find ways to bring this to the attention of experienced Wikipedia editors to serve as independent objective referees/assessors. It became clearer to me as the process was unfolding that it has its internal self-corrective integrity - You are clearly an experienced editor, with sound knowledge as librarian. One side-comment to consider (generally and independently form the article being discussed) is that: “chapters” in anonymously-peer-refereed edited volumes (published by Cambridge, Oxford, Routledge, Brill, etc.) are nearly equivalent to anonymously-peer-refereed “journal articles”, this is the case in the humanities, unlike the criteria of the natural, applied, and social sciences) - I was hesitant at first to write this whole clarification, but I then felt it is vital to do so given the integrity editors like you are bringing to the process, and that clarifying my actions ultimately serves the same purpose, although my contribution to Wikipedia will remain minimal given the limited time I am able to dedicate to it. Thanks anyway (AcademeEditorial (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Based on my career talking to academics, publishers, and specialist librarians in all fields of knowledge, such chapters are in general not the equivalent, even in the humanities-- except in a few very specialized fields, or if the chapter is in something really important, and I consequently left one in. But I was exceptionally conservative in removing material--normally we do not even include any journal articles for people in fields where the notability and the academic advancement is primarily by published books, and even in the fields where articles are the most important forms of presentation we normally include only the two or three most cited--and there are some editors here who challenge even that. Taking you at your word, there may be no direct coi, but there is such rampant promotionalism in all areas of the world , including the academics, that even good faith editors tend to write promotional articles as that;s what they've always seen, and unfortunately even in WP. It will be years until we have removed half million or so promotional articles from earlier years when standards were lower, but at least we do not want to add to them.
If you do have time for WP, I urge you to write brief bios of leading people in your subject area. The easiest criterion to meet to show notability is holding a named distinguished professorship. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DGG for your response. I began now a User-Page and will see how things progress. The summer is easier than later in the year in terms of having some time to making contributions to WP. I prefer to improve existing articles than start from scratch since I am new to the WP technicalities. However, given the tags under my userpage, I will steer away from the article being discussed and leave its handling to experienced editors (AcademeEditorial (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Any suggestions for tactics in my expository writing style or my persuasive writing in negotiation with admins would be appreciated. sheridanford (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this comment of yours on a user page was instead intended for the corresponding talk page. However, I suggest that you skimread the depths of this user talk page before moving it there. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was trying to make a good faith effort to contribute. Though we of course do not like autobios, they are not prohibited, and his was very close to appropriate; Google Scholar shows him highly notable, both for the papers and the major textbook. The block seems an over-reaction to a new ed. who makes mistakes, and whose initial effort was given an altogether incorrect AFC review. I will just write the article myself based on the official CV etc DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG! I was reading some of the materials on your user page and it was useful for me to read them. I'. Specially, I would like to know if the materials of "with respect to consensus at AfDs" are induced to your mind by WP's policies and guidelines or it's just a personal interpretation of them? Btw, the paragraph starts with quotation mark but I could not find where it's closed. Regards. --Mhhosseintalk 10:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind shedding light on this query? --Mhhosseintalk 12:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I created my first page, but not sure what I did wrong. I'm trying to understand what it's needed. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVelez71 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
still to do [reply]
Suggested wikiproject on Canadian Visual Arts[edit]
Dear David. When I first started writing entries you were very helpful and I would like to do the same for new writers on Canadian Art by starting a separate wikiproject or category to the Canadian article page. This would include general information on Canadian notability and key awards, institutions, sources of published articles etc as well as preview on request or review new entries. I – and hopefully others – would add information and rescue those entries with notability or stub tags, but not deletions. Does this sound like a good idea to you and, if so, could I send you my notability criteria who you to have a look at. Best regards, Heather HeatherBlack (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
certainly I will look at anything you send, preferably on wiki but email is OK if you think it more appropriate. However, I remind you that no project has any authority over the community, and any rules the project may make regarding notability are mere suggestions unless the community chooses to formally add them as a Special Notability guidelines--which is rather rare, or tacitly adopt them by following them at AfD--which is more likely. It helps if they are consistent with existing guidelines, particularly WP:CREATIVE, and I am not sure I see the need for anything else, except for such details as which museums or publications count towards the conditions there. Other projects have made similar definitions, and they are usually respected.
I would also suggest that it be worded, "try to add information and evaluate those entries with notability tags etc .. "rather that necessarily rescue." The proper approach is to call attention to challenged articles in a field, but not take a one sided approach to them. I'm confident you didn't mean to imply this, but meant to say to defend the articles that should appropriately be defended--it has to be carefully worded to be unmistakably neutral. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David! Yes my intention is to include and refine the Notability Creative Text with the Canadian institutions etc with a few suggestions that you passed on to me. And I agree it's important to use the proper words, so thank you, I will send you a short draft here within a week or so. Best wishes for the holidays. HeatherBlack (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. I'd contested the speedy deletion of this after pruning it right back. Shouldn't there have been some discussion before it was deleted? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
to reply[reply]
You made a minor edit to this, is it worth keeping any longer? It has had no substantive edits since May. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
three significant awards, major writer. I'm reluctant to try to cut down the plot section of a book I haven't read, but that's the only reason for not accepting it. Maybe I'll eliminate the plot section entirely. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have a look at this for me please. I PRODed it because I thought it was a no brainer for not meeting WP:PROF. It was dePRODed by its author on the basis that ' all professors are notable'. Maybe she is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you that she doesn't meet PROF (based on what's in the article). I haven't looked into general claims of notability, but being the head of a department often means you've just been around longer than everyone else. Just because an editathon created the page (or vetted it) does not mean that the PROF rules have changed (and no, not all professors are notable). Primefac (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
I'm looking at the publications in some more considerable depth. My comments will be on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your AFD comments for Danielle Fong's article, can you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women#May_Tha_Hla and see if they did any better in digging up secondary sources for that? It's leaning on similar notability as I discussed with mainly BBC 100 Women and similar lists but expanded from there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time we eliminated placement on lists as a criterion in notability determinations. Thee have been too many instances of borderline notability decisions based on such factors. (I want to say, that although I sometimes evaluate material a little differently than you, I greatly respect your attempts to bring some realism and common sense to these discussions.) DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. The Danielle Fong article has a better chance at notability than some of the AFD, AFC and New Pages Feed articles I've had to deal with, even if the overall media and apparent rush of new advocate editors is biased towards promoting her causes. Feel free to chime in at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women which is the general thread I have going on, regarding such listings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the pt of view of notability I agree there have been much more unlikely articles. But check my nom. I nominated it because of the repeated promotionalism, which seemed unfixable--I did try. Unless it's protected, it'll soon be back at 40,000. Opinion varies on how we should handle situations like this--none of our methods are fully satisfactory. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it survives AFD then it definitely needs protection from promotionalism. Another editor has already upped the talk page to mention DS-level sanctions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
12:19:27, 22 January 2018 review of submission by Zelgizbog[edit]
Hi DGG. Thank you for the pointers. I have added new references to the article. I believe # 2,3,4,5,7,9and 11 would be considered notable and non-press releaseish. I have deleted the awards sections as well. Would appreciate any other pointers you think would improve this article. I have resubmitted for review in the meantime. Thank you!
preliminary question: were any of the activities in the "Activism" section successful? DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pentax is a harvard business school case study and was a very successful case. the other one is ongoing. im sure there are many that were unsuccessful that didnt make the papers....Zelgizbog (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. Just checking in to see if I can do anything else for this page. Thanks Zelgizbog (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I have deproddedSimple Energy because it's been previously kept at AfD. I only did this for procedural reasons and have no prejudice against you taking it back to AfD. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Research software engineering, 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 file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
I've added more information that shows how RSE differs from SE and it's a topci by itself, more will be added in the coming days. Let me know if you still think this is not enough. Thanks
Dvdgc (talk)
Hi DGG,
Many thanks for your many productive contributions to the Wiki community. I'm a noobie here and am working on my first contribution, Draft:Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (Thanks for the helpful suggestions). I've cited a mix of notable and non-notable sources (more of the latter), since the non-notable citations provide useful information. Does including a large fraction of non-notable citations detract from the article, per Wiki standards? Should I remove the non-notables (almost) completely? I've resubmitted my draft, and it's awaiting review. ~Cheers~ David
Fieldsde (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement for sources is not that they are notable, but rather that they are reliable; for material in an article, the rules are at WP:RS, with details discussed at the very large number of discussion in the archives of [[WP::RSN]], the Reliable sources noticeboard. The special conditions for sources that are suitable for showing notability are at WP:N, which can basically be summarized as references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The interpretation of that general phrase varies with subject, and to some extent tends to reflect general feelings about what our coverage ought to be.
With respect to Draft:Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop: We generally have been relatively reluctant to make articles of series of conferences,or organizations that sponsor them, unless there is very firm 3rd party evidence that they are regarded as the most important one in the subject. The sources in the draft are almost entirely publications by the organization itself or very closely related organizations, and therefore not independent.
My role in screening AfCs is not to decide on accepting the article, but to try to estimate whether the community will accept it. The place where that decision is made is in an AfD discussion, and it goes by consensus. The way we do things here, nobody can fully predict the result of such discussions, but on the basis of my experience in many thousands of them, the article is unlikely to be accepted in its current form. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
←[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that the need is for more reliable (independent) sources that show notability. Please continue contributing to the Wiki effort. Best regards. Fieldsde (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG Stop reversing the original "Letters to John Law" citation for the language relating to the duel of John Law and Edward Wilson on the Bloomsbury_Square page. You have clearly lost both your objectivity and credibility as a Wikipedia editor in relation to that edit as you have invented several incorrect reasons to justify your edit: justifications that are simply incorrect and baseless. Firstly, you claim the book is a "self published source" - that is simply incorrect. It is not. It is published by an established independent publisher. Secondly, you claim the book is "almost unknown" - again, that is simply incorrect. It is not: is on the reading list for the history of economics course at MIT (http://lawandrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Finance_and_Fraud_Syllabus_3-7-14.pdf). Thirdly, the language stated in the article is taken from the Adams book - it is not from the Gleeson book you seem intent on incorrectly citing for the language from the Adams book, and that is because the Gleeson book does not deal with the duel in anywhere near the same extent as the Adams book. Fourthly, that citation and its corresponding text was inserted on the page in question (not by me - check the history) 5 years ago, and has quite correctly stood as the correct text and correct citation since that time, before you arbitrarily decided to erroneously remove it. Might I suggest you take a step back and attempt to regain some objectivity about that edit as you are damaging both the integrity of the article, and your own integrity as an editor by making inaccurate and unsubstantiated edits and inventing incorrect reasons for making them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siolio (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I asked you, did you or an associate write the book? DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG As, I responded to you - NO. I read it at MIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siolio (talk • contribs) 01:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll deal with this later. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG You can 'deal' with whatever you like, whenever you want to. But I suggest you take an honest reflection of your edit on this article (especially given what you say about editing on your own user page - as your position here goes completely against the standards you claim to maintain) as you will see that you have completely lost objectivity over a perfectly legitimate source (which was not inserted by me) and have made erroneous edits in relation to it and attempted to substantiate those erroneous edits not with facts and objectivity but with completely incorrect and contrived statements that are baseless have zero credibility. In this respect, your edits are doing a disservice to the page in question, a disservice to the Wikipedia community, and damaging your own credibility.
Hi DGG,
my name is Marco Krohn and I am one of the co-founders of "Genesis Mining". I just tried to create a stub about Genesis Mining, but noticed that the article is blocked because it was not considered noteworthy in the past. I have not edited Wikipedia for a long time, so please bear with me, if I do not follow the right route by directly asking you to unblock the article. Any guidance would be highly appreciated! Please note that my intention is only to create a stub for the company. I do not want to be involved in the article itself; this should be done by the Wikipedia community.
The reason why I think that "Genesis Mining" is fulfilling the criteria as per Wikipedia:Notability by now, is the extensive coverage by international media, including:
Any help/pointers from your side would be highly appreciated. -- mkrohn (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the frank disclosure, so I assume you have read WP:COI. The protection was because the article was re-created twice by the sock of an editor who had been banned as a undeclared paid editor. I have just deleted the version that was in draft, because it was also created by a banned editor. I am glad you realize that is not the way to proceed. You can proceed to write an new article in Draft space, and when you are ready we can look at and see if the protection should be lifted to create it.
But interviews with anyone associated with the company are not reliable sources, because they are not truly independent--the person can say whatever they please. The company however is prominent enough that you should be able to find real news articles that discuss it in a substantial way. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I worked very hard on the Livin Lite RV article to source it and be objective. To the extent that it could be perceived to read like an advertisement, that is due to the limited sources that are available (though I don't agree with the advertisement assertion). All content must be verifiable. I've written and edited many Wikipedia articles (not that that makes me any good). In working on this one I looked at other RV manufacturer articles. This new article is one of the best out there. It contains basic facts about the company that are all sourced and verifiable. I request you reconsider this tag or advise me on what I can do to meet the standards as you perceive them. Thank you.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS--I went ahead and removed some of the external links.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've been working on a number of companies in this field, among other topics, so it's clear that your intent is not promotional. But compare this with the article on Thor Industries. The key problem here is is the repeated emphasis and excessive detail about the lightweight construction. When you fix it, let me know. . DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made a number of edits. One thing is, the lightweight construction is something that makes this product different so it seems particularly noteworthy to discuss it--as long as it's sourced. Thanks for your work on wikipedia, I hope you'll find the edits acceptable.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Also, dealers are saying Thor/KZ is on the verge of shutting down Livin Lite. There isn't much material other than talk in chat groups and one dealer did a blog post about it. It's not enough I don't think to add that fact yet, but as soon as an RV news outlet covers it (as it seems likely that they will) I will add it to the article. I found the company interesting because it appears they produce something unique in the RV industry, which is notorious for poorly built products. I am a huge fan of Airstreams, but in some ways the Livin Lite products seem to be even better built than Airstreams. At any rate, the way they construct their trailers is what got my attention and what got me interested in it.--Utahredrock (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is still too much emphasis on detail, and I may edit it further myself. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, said solicitation: scrutinize! Starting sources - some silly, some seriously substantial. Seemingly sufficient? --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, remember that in many recent afds we considered interviews with subjects where they say what they please not to be truly independent sources, but rather primary sources, with all their usual limitation. But I think almost any press on an entertainment or society figure or model or the like, is instigated by PR, but in theses field insisting on real freedom from PR might make it almost impossible to have an article, unless the person is actually famous.
My general view is to adapt the requirements to the field, to some degree, and interpret them so we can justify articles on the most notable, without requiring actual fame with academic books on them. I am not one of the people who want to adjust standards to decrease our coverage for fields in which they have no interest. We all have different ideas about what fields are important, and we need to accommodate each other. I don't want to impose my own views about importance to the world upon others--and I expect others will do similarly in return.
For specifics, see the draft talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it took me just a bit longer than I thought it would ... but here it is: Summer Rayne Oakes. Hope it is OK. --GRuban (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of page: Introduction to Modern Application Development[edit]
Hi DDG, I noticed you had deleted my page on Introduction To Modern Application Development. I would like to understand why. You had given the reason as 'unambiguous promotion or advertising', but everything in the article was sourced from independent, highly reputed news sources. Could you please explain why?
Tanmaig (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it after it has been listed by another experienced editor. It is indistinguishable from a straightforward advertisement for the MOOC, including an outline of course content and information of getting academic credit for it. This is not encyclopedic content.
I'd say just the same for your article on The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. The book is notable, but the absurdly over-detailed article is promotional--it is 10 times the length of the articles on his other books. Articles do not have to be intended as an advertisement to be promotional --we cannot judge intent. We judge content. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Example source: Thurm, Scott (February 23, 2009). "McKinsey Partners Pick Barton to Lead Firm". The Wall Street Journal. Article-text this source is used to support: Dominic Barton "was hired by McKinsey & Company to work in the Toronto office in 1986." Question: Does WP:AGEMATTERS prohibit using this 2009 source for events taking place in 1986? Context: This is regarding the feedback I got from @Spintendo: on a draft I prepared for the Dominic Barton page (see Talk). This feedback effects most of the content covering his career before he became famous in 2009.
CorporateM (Talk) 14:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a contemporary source for bio details before anyone is taking notice of the subject will be tough, and the source would be primary. TKe it back further. Unless you can find a newspaper birth announcement, a birth certificate would be the only contemporary source for a subject's birthdate. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Age does not matter for a source for factual information such as this. Nothing in the section quoted has anything to do with this sort of situation. Furthermore, a birth certificate is a primary source,and does not definitively seytle the question of birthdate in any event--they can be misdated accidentally or deliberately. I will take a look at the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft article-text this source is used to support: "He was hired by McKinsey & Company to work in the Toronto office in 1986 and worked in Toronto for eleven years."
Clarification: I reviewed this claim statement and was concerned with its mentioning events taking place in 1986. The claim statement in the draft version said that the subject worked at the Toronto office for 11 years. But according to the source proper, the subject worked in Asia for 11 years. Both claims cannot be true, unless the source meant that Barton worked in the Asia sector department at its Toronto office for 11 years. The WSJ does not ultimately specify which was the case. It was this discrepancy and the uncertainty surrounding it which led me to mark the Thurm source as unapproved for use on its first claim, which I felt needed clearing up, while marking it as approved for use on its second claim (that Dominic Barton won the election in 2009 and became Managing Director of McKinsey & Company on July 1st). Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 09:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. Just wanted to check-in and see if this was still on your radar. No rush. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. I thought I'd see if you still had any interest in this page. About two months ago @John Broughton: did the early life section and got halfway down the career section, but has since gotten busy elsewhere. He is also no longer managing director at McKinsey. I'd be happy to start a new string on the changes that are still needed. CorporateM (Talk) 12:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of page: Introduction to Modern Application Development[edit]
Hi DDG, I noticed you had deleted my page on Introduction To Modern Application Development. I would like to understand why. You had given the reason as 'unambiguous promotion or advertising', but everything in the article was sourced from independent, highly reputed news sources. Could you please explain why?
Tanmaig (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it after it has been listed by another experienced editor. It is indistinguishable from a straightforward advertisement for the MOOC, including an outline of course content and information of getting academic credit for it. This is not encyclopedic content.
I'd say just the same for your article on The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. The book is notable, but the absurdly over-detailed article is promotional--it is 10 times the length of the articles on his other books. Articles do not have to be intended as an advertisement to be promotional --we cannot judge intent. We judge content. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG! Thank you for taking the time to review my submissionDraft: Pradip Sawant. I've read the feedback, but it seems a little broad. I would appreciate some specific pointers as to how this can be improved. I appreciate your help. And also please tell me some example of good 3rd party references, cause i have used Times of India as reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnybcn1 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to do major clean up. Still not sure if any further clean up required. Pls see if you can remove advert tag now or suggest what needs to be done. Thanks HelloDolly89 (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt is enough non-repetitive non-promotional content for both an article on the sponsor and on the foundation. But I will take another look DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for consideration. Removed almost majority of text and link. Regards HelloDolly89 (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A large section of this draft was added by a user (on your suggestion) to the text of Main Library (University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign) but in such a way that no indication of its origin was given and thus no credit was given to the original author(s). That needs to be remedied either through a history merge or through a deletion of all the subsequent revisions of the merge target, removing the copyvio content from the history (otherwise it is only too likely to be restored).
I think the article should be rather of the Libraries of the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, and I will make the appropriate merges and links. The history may have to remain for the time being in the history of the redirects, because the only times I have done so, I have made a total mess out of it. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I hope you’re well. I know it’s been a while since we last spoke, but I’m looking for guidance on conflict resolution, and your name has appeared in a number of places across Wikipedia. You commented on my initial propositions to make changes to David M. Cote three years ago, and weighed in on my ongoing dispute with Philafrenzy not too long after. I recently requested new edits, and Philafrenzy again antagonized me on the sole basis that I am a COI editor. I want to understand what my options are and what best practices would be for resolving this conflict. I previously submitted an RfC, requested a 3O, and submitted an edit request.
I feel that despite my efforts, any propositions I make are viewed with great antagonism, and that my character is attacked rather than the content I’m suggesting. It seems to me that Philafrenzy is being deliberately obstinate (and I’m sure they think the same of me), but it’s difficult for me to continue assuming good faith when they neglect to engage on the talk page and instead edit the article directly, with the recent exception of another personal attack after I made another edit request.
Philafrenzy and I have found common ground before, so I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility for us to come to some sort of understanding. Would you agree that mediation is the next step forward? I don’t think we’ve reached the point of arbitration, and I’d like to handle this as diplomatically as possible.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at the current state. Arb com, by the way, does not handle content disputes. DGG ( talk ) 10:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. I know ArbCom doesn't handle content disputes, but I guess I'm curious to know where the line is between a content dispute and a editor conflict. I've never found myself in a situation like this, and I respect your expertise.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kesari Tours article has been deleted from Wikipedia because it was repeatedly recreated for promoting Kesari Tours in the past (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kesari Tours). If you go through the content written by me, I have not mentioned about any awards and achievements of Kesari Tours as mentioned in the past articles. I have completely referred to facts and figures mentioned in the news sites and they don't intend to promote Kesari Tours. I have cross checked the articles mentioned in the past and I completely agree that they were misleading and inappropriate. My objective of creating Kesari Tours on Wikipedia is to lead audience with appropriate facts and figures rather than mislead them. I am quite aware about the guidelines for creating an article on Wikipedia and I have always tried to stick around with the facts. It will be really helpful if you can review the content written by me and further guide me to edit the content which can be further reviewed by you before I upload it on Wikipedia. It will be a learning for an aspiring Wikipedia contributor as well.
I am also putting forward this request because in India many people get their tickets booked from Kesari Tours and we can also add a column of criticism where we can include a couple of fraud cases that customers have faced. At the end of the day, Wikipedia should be able to spread correct information. I am an independent contributor and I don't support any organization. Hence I am not a supporter of Kesari Tours but I want audience in India to be informed about the presence of this firm just like all the other companies. All of my statements are supported by news facts. As said before, I will edit the article as per your guidance and going forward I can keep monitoring the page to avoid addition of any wrong information or promotional content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wil recheck. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have the chance to go through Kesari Tours article? If you guide me and send me a copy of the article, I can edit it and send it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talk • contribs) 12:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir, did you have the opportunity to go through the article? Kindly check and let me know how to edit it so that it can be put together again. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talk • contribs) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Waugh (2nd nomination). I sent it to AfD, and it has devolved into a Bludgeon fest, with at least one of the !Keep editors having Canvassed. The !keep editors have participated in less than 50 AfDs each (with the most confident of them, only voting with consensus 47% of the time), and it seems like they are forcefully attempting to claim a rather different set of expectations around Artist 4(b) than I have seen elsewhere at AfD. Furthermore, the Bludgeoning seems to have discouraged any new voices from participating. Your experienced and impartial advice is welcome, either here, or on the AfD. --Theredproject (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Bishop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello, David Goodman, with regard to the recent speedy deletion, I am curious whether you read the TALK page prior to the action? If so, could you elaborate upon the rationale for your decision? If not, can I provide those TALK points on this page? Thank you.
DGG, I respect the view your expressed at Nextdoor very much and in the normal course of events, that's ideal. There's a proposal, an independent editor reviews it and says yes or no or asks me to make changes. Maybe there is some discussion or an RfC. It's all pretty straightforward. All I tell people who hire me is that I will try to get them a fair article, stay strictly within WP policy and act ethically above all else. I turn down maybe 4 out of 5 people who ask for help because their requests seem invalid to me. I'm independent - no one can hoist an assignment on me. I come up with my own article language for a proposal, based on what I think is fair and allowable under WP policy, and only have clients do a review for accuracy.
For Nextdoor, I am only hoping for fairness and NPOV from editors who take the time to review all the relevant sources. emark came after a specific matter in question had been decided contrary the editor's position.
Any mistakes in judgment are my own, as the company has only asked the article be fair. They're leaving it to me to decide how to best accomplish that.-BC1278 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
Fair" tends to mean, "a fair statement of my POV". Our rule is neutral, as judged by those with no stake in the matter, not a negotiated compromise between NPOV and a subject's position. I appreciate the difficulties our policy must present for you, which is one of the reasons we should consider abolishing paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Hello DGG, Thank you for reviewing our article as well as the information and guidance you offered.
I'm very interested in having the tags removed from the article once it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Please let me know if there is any way I can help speed this process.
do you have specifics contradicting any of the sources? Some of the sources, for example, Strabo, Ptolemy, Livy, Arrian, Thucydides, etc. are used by all modern scholars. The Smith dictionaries are extensively used and followed by others (more modern) such as the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World and An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. I'd like to know of conflicting information. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I am a paid contributor for Global Wireless Solutions and noticed your edits on the page. I am curious why you categorized the "examples of network benchmark tests" as spam, despite none of them including links to the Global Wireless Solutions webpage? The footnotes were all external news articles and Global Wireless Solutions did not have any influence on them. Please let me know what the problem is for my future understanding. Thank you! Scwiki3 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
your including them could be see as link spam--a way to get links in WP from famous entities that are only incidental to the subject of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! I have included your edits in my proposed edits on the Global Wireless Solutions talk page, as well as replaced the "press release" languge with more informative, concise content. I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my proposed edits and approve them if they are satisfactory. If you approve them, then the press release tag at the top of the Global Wireless Solutions page should be resolved. Furthermore, now that I have been disclosed as a paid contributor to the Global Wireless Solutions page, the COI/"close connection" tag at the top of the page has been resolved and so it would be great if you could manually remove it as well. Thanks! Scwiki3 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Your knowledge of the products helped make for a more compact presentation, and I replaced the corresponding text with your new version (I cleaned up the wording: see the talk p for details. I rarely copyedit paid work to this degree, but the extent of your changes indicates you can learn our style, and it is easier to teach these things by example. . Now rewrite the remainder DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added edits of the remainder, focusing on removing repetitive information from the History section and making it clear and concise for the readers. If you approve these edits, I think it would be best for you to copy and paste all of my proposed edits on to the page as I noticed there were a few footnote problems when only part of the text was copy&pasted. Also, if these edits are sufficient then hopefully you will be able to resolve the tags at the top of the Global Wireless Solutions page. Thank you! Scwiki3 (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
== Sylvia Spring - "deleted self-serving promotional quotes" ==
Hi DGG, I notice that you have edited this article. I have no problem with that, but I do wonder why you described it as "deleting self-serving promotional quotes". I have no connection at all with Sylvia Spring - I had not heard of her before I saw the AfD. I included quotes from her as I thought they were interesting. Perhaps they are not appropriate for the style of Wikipedia - as I have said, I am new here. But they were in no way "self-serving" or "promotional", and your assumption that they were is unfounded, and unnecessary to include in a description of the edits you have done. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
there's a problem with our terminology here: we use promotionalism to include advocacy. Just as it is essentially impossible to write an articles about a consumer product without some degree of promotionalism, it is essentially impossible to write about an advocate without including some degree of advocacy. Anything qwrittene about a good cause has the effect of advocating for it. There is no cut-and-dried solution here--it takes careful writing and rewriting to get the most objective article possible that is still not a mere directory entry. I made a partial attempt towards this, but I am not satisfied with the result.
the comments referred to are ones she made, in an apparent effort to promote her own importance. They are therefore inappropriate in an encyclopedia.We sometimes will include a limited number of such quotes from a famous person; she is notable, not famous. In my opinion there is much more promotional material to be removed--she is an advocate for a cause, and the description of her causes belongs in the subject articles about them. Some of the organization don't have articles--perhaps they can be written. Further, the inclusion within the text of extensive paragraphs of quotations from the reviews is in m opinion not a good idea. The best way to handle these is to but them in the footnotes as part of the citation. I did the minimum I thought necessary, and I hope that you will work on it further. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I need help understanding what specific changes I should make to the page in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. The reason for your decline stated that it "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources," and as you'll see, I included 16 entirely independent, highly reputable sources -- none of which included content produced by or for the company. Additionally, when modeling this submission, I took careful pains to ensure it matched the near-exact format of other published Wikipedia pages (such as Rent_the_Runway and Hims,_Inc.). So I'm really unsure as to what I should be editing. The more specific guidance, the better! I welcome any & all feedback. Thank you very much!
LindzSchmidt (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
forthcoming, will take a few days because I 777want to give a complete answer. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hi David -- quickly following up here as I know you're extremely busy, in case if fell off your radar. thanks! ( talk ) 02:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The message said that the primary problem was promotionalism , but also said, as with most promotional articles, the problem is equally the nature of the references, and the doubtful notability of the company according to our rules. It's our standard message, because a great many other people have similar problems.
I'm going to answer in some detail, both about the particular problems and the reasons for them, as articles like this are one of the main things I work with here, and others come here to ask similar questions--and many editors who deal with them look at this page also.
(1) The preliminary problem is about conflict of interest: you have made a declaration, but not full disclosure according to WP:PAID; We do not ask you to say who you are, but rather the nature of the relationship. I will assume you are a staff member or contractor of the company whose job it is to write publicity.
(2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for publicity. Promotional content is material that says what the subject of the article would like the public to know; encyclopedic content is what someone in the general public who has heard the name of your company somewhere might want to know. The usual context for an article of this sort is something like "Mary said she bought something from X; I wonder who they are" or "I saw an advertisement from X--I'd like to see something objective about them." That's the general public--someone looking to buy furniture is best served by other resources, and the web does this fairly well--we have no need to be a directory or a product guide.
For comparison, although Rent the Runway was written in considerable part by a coi editor, the firm now has multiple refs from some of the most reliable major non-specialized sources. Hims, Inc has at least some similar very good sources. When this firm has similar sources, it will be possible to write an acceptable article.
(3) In earlier years WP accepted many such promotional articles, but recognizing that we have become a very attractive place for attempted advertising, our standards have risen. It will be many years until we remove the 50,000 or so articles we need to get rid of, but the least we can do is not add to them. The prevalence of promotionalism in the world is so great that ofter newcomers acting in perfect good faith write articles here in a promotional style, because they see so many existing promotional articles that they think that's what we want; yet others, like Hims Inc., though written by experienced editors, contain promotional elements. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
v
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Gerard Reinmuth[edit]
Hi DDG
As a Creative professionals, I would like to contest the nomination for speedy deletion, however the page is no longer in existence that I can see.
It was referenced as G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The information was factual and based off a number of external wiki resources as well as internal wiki references. If it was believed the content was not written from a neutral point of view i would have like the opportunity to adjust the text accordingly
According to the List of Policies Criteria for speedy deletion [1] Articles, images, categories etc. may be "speedily deleted" if they clearly fall within certain categories, which generally boil down to pages lacking content, or disruptive pages. Anything potentially controversial should go through the deletion process instead. The content was not lacking or distruptive and would not cause any controversy. The only criteria that the page could have fallen under would be a Proposed deletion of biographies of living people [2]
If you could advise on how i can proceed, as i have been advised by WP:REFUND that i should contact the administrator who carried out the deletion as the page was completely deleted overnight.
If you have any advise on how to improve the page that would be appreciated, as i am new to wikipedia posting any would appreciate any guidance.
No matter how notable you are, it is not a good idea to write about yourself. When you do , you are almost inevitably going to be telling what you want people to know about yourself, rather then writing from a neutral point of view what general readers might want to know; this is the essence of self-advertising, or promotionalism. In this particular instance, in addition to listing your major projects as an architect, you added a line for each saying what you thought the importance of it to be--this is the sort of information that most come fro from third-party independent published reliable sources,. In discussing your teaching, you included a long quote describing not just your educational philosophy, and also included wording extolling its merits and success. In listing awards, you included minor as well as major awards, you included being nominated along with actually winning an award, and you provided no third party references for any of this.
Ten years ago, I would probably have rewritten the page, but there is now so many autobiographies and other promotional material submitted to Wikipedia that it has become impractical. Even two years ago, I would have restored it so you can work on it further. I will no longer restore autobiographies. If any editor without a conflict of interest wants to work on it, I will resotre it to draft. If any other administrator wants to restore it so you can work on it, I have no objections. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
' DGG thank you for the constructive feedback, really appreciated. Can i give and external editor access to the restored draft through my profile? Gerard Reinmuth (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a lot of the draft so that hopefully it now isn’t an advertisement. --Kookyquail (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To revert an edit (added out of place -- just noticed)[edit]
Sir, one of contribution made by an user "Abrjestin" in Dr. Shamsheer article is irrelevant. He removed the previous relevant edits made by other user. One of his work is that he removed a preposition "a" before"MBBS"(undergraduate) degree owned by Dr. Shamsheer (in early life paragraph). A silly grammatical error.
I have also seen that you had advised him not to make such edits on his talk page but in spite of that he is not paying attention.
I also think that the article page should be protected so, that any irrelevant edit should not be done by anyone. It will be very nice if you cross check the article once more.
Thanks. (223.230.137.128 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Dear Editor, I found this thought of yours "Furthermore, promotionalism in the world in general, and in Wikipedia in particular, is so pervasive, that even people without a promotional intend tend to write in a promotional manner." I wonder if this is a trap I might be in too. When I saw your comments on Draft:Sergei_Vakarin I thought it was clear what to do and fixed most of the issues you kindly mentioned. I presented the facts and provided references. However, maybe my current style is a reflection of the trend you mention? Your editorial experience (if I could ask for a favour) would help me a lot in improving my style for any further articles I was planning about issues that are currently missing from the Wikipedia. Demetrius Phalerum (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes--it will in this case be a little complicated to explain. Remember the distinction between something written from the perspective of what the subject might want the reader to know, and what a reader might want to know. As a start, try reorganizing it in the sequence, Biography, Education, Positions, Research, Publications, Public Involvement--that is, pretty much the reverse of the present version. Then ping me here again and I iwll take a look. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I applied your recommended structure on Draft:Sergei_Vakarin and updated the text. It is amazing how much better the information is organized now - thanks a lot! And could I ask you - if you still see any irrelevant information - to kindly change or just delete it? Demetrius Phalerum (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG:, the reason I added the WP:PROD tag to the above-captioned redirect pages is that they serve as a redirect to a list of Canadian banks; however, for clarity and information purposes, they're listed as redlinked names in the Template:Canadian banks pages (should anyone ultimately decide to create a page, and so people know they exist). Thus, clicking on that link in that footer box takes the user to yet another list making for a de-facto double redirect. If you'd let me put back on the WP:PROD tag, that'd be appreciated as my concern is the RfD deletion process doesn't have a high success rate. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus at RfD would not be to remove, this would not be a proper use of Prod. In my opinion, the question of red links vs redirects to a list has good arguments in both directions. As I understand it, that's the purpose of the redirect with possibilities tag. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, That's fair re: RfD consensus, but if I explain my rationale better, I'm wondering if you might have a way to explain this in an RfD process and see my logic process behind wanting to delete the redirect (which has no real value). You see, in Template:Canadian banks, which I like to maintain religiously and regularly, that template is added to the footer of every page. Many banks and credit unions that aren't WP:Notable are still listed in that template as redlinked banks. If we have a redirect, instead of deleting the page, which redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada, the user clicks through from the template to the list. I just don't think that's helpful. Does that make more sense?
. Myself, I like lists because of the information they can give, but my view here has consistently been that each way one is right if it has some advantage for some users. But the problem you pose is real, and I have an idea for a workaround. More tomorrow, when I have a chance to try it out. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, Yeah, I do like lists, too, and I'm all for including them in those lists. I see another user (@Wugapodes:) added a clarifying footnote on WP:Printability, which is useful. However, I'm wondering if we can make this a soft redirect somehow? That is, the user sees the redirect page and chooses whether to click through? What were you thinking of?
Howdy hello! You mentioned some draft templates you were working on in regards to AfC and COI. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
revising them a little/.I'll let you know. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC) .[reply]
"Geographies" as spacial marker for 'varied' economic realities[edit]
Hello User:DGG, It was great meeting you at WikiConference North America this year! Relating to the conversation we had, I decided to do a bit of digging, to give a bit more of a colorful idea behind the idea of geographies as a spacial marker for varied economic realities as used in the roundtable we shared in. I noted your preference for this term as opposed to (the oft-used) unnuanced hemispheric divisions for discussions relating to global issues surrounding economics, human development, and access.
The term (in this context) is a multidisciplinary approach to identifying and appealing to a more politically correct & comprehensive view of varying realities with an eye for establishing a distancing from implicit political & racial biases. It achieves this through the intentional exclusion of the terms "North" and "South"; cited as sources of the aforementioned implicit bias(es). Moreover, authors like Ahlberg et. al speak of the 'biases' resulting from;
I already put in inline links to the version you edited. If you edit some more, I can do the same. Please check the current version. You can see it.
Thanks. QSandai (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking so much time and energy ensuring the quality of Wikipedia.
I am writing on behalf of a student of mine who conducted some research on the Cherokee Files (formerly classified correspondence between the U.S. and the Republic of Korea during the critical 1979-1980 period). Together we determined that putting some basic information about these documents up on Wikipedia would be a useful service. Hence, his created page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cherokee_Files.
As we are both neophytes, could you please provide a little more detail as to precisely why the page was declined? The sources used are primarily the actual files themselves. Is there a reason why that is unacceptable? Would the entire entry be more acceptable if he were to rework (or remove entirely) the "Controversy" section?
I hope to be able to use creating Wikipedia pages as a potential student assignment in the future; therefore, the more clarity I can get on what is and is not acceptable will be most appreciated!
Cheers,
Kirk W. Larsen
Associate Professor of History
Brigham Young University
Hi DGG -- You and I clearly disagree about quite how promotional articles need to be for G11 to apply. Kaveh Alizadeh appears only very borderline notable and might benefit from a test at AfD. Younan Nowzaradan is, I think, probably notable if only as a television personality, but you could try redirecting to My 600-lb Life and see if you get reverted. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, G11 is somewhat subjective. This is why I do not delete them single handedly, nor think that any admin should., About 5% of my nominations will possibly be errors or overreach, which by itself would be too high an error rate to be acceptable or fair to the contributors. But with two people checking each other that becomes 0.25 % ,which is as good as can be expected. And certainly one person never sees all the opportunities for redirection or merge. I rely on people checking me, & I am glad that you do so. DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I'm not sure if you still remember, but thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback for my draft a couple months back.
Per your feedback, I've rewritten things to be more readable, removed excessive sections, and added a few more sources as well. If you had the time, I would really appreciate if you could take another look to see if I went in the right direction and did it correctly this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nexant
Regardless, I hope you're having a wonderful holiday season so far!
Hi DGG,
Thanks for your review will update the page and ask for your further suggestions.
Happy Holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital1804 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hey DGG I am already working on new version and trying my best to improve the article based on your suggestion. I dont see a point how marking is as advert is going to affect it. I Request you remove the tag as i am already working on it along with few other articles. Digital1804 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Check[reply]
I would like to create a page at Northern_Transmissions but I see that it was created a deleted multiple times in 2015. Please inform me as to how to proceed.
Henry A-W (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, start in in draft space, by making a page Draft:Northern Transmissions. When it is reviewed , if it is judged acceptable, an administrator will move it over the protection. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've created Draft:Northern Transmissions which is ready for review. In the course of creating it I discovered the url is blacklisted. I was unsuccessful in having it removed [2] so I have created the page without any references to the url. Since this page is about a website I can understand that a page without any references to url may not meet certain standards. Please advise.--Henry A-W (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you probably dont remember me from montreal wikimania[edit]
I have the opinion that TW is actually the highest standard content editor we have in the wonderful land of OZ.
But then as an endless tagger, I have a very personal view, it might not fit with others... JarrahTree 06:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. I was wondering if you had time to give me a quick notability opinion. Is this enough cites to meet NPROF1? Does it matter if the subject is the lead author on a paper or not? Thanks – Levivich 16:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Butt here's a real problem as far as we are concerned--the entire article is a direct copyvio from [3], which the article actually lists as the only reference!. (For bios, the person's website is the first place to check. ) I have tagged it for speedy deletion as copyvio. What really concerns me, is that this article comes from a regular contributor with 18,000 mainspace edits since 2017. This will need follow up. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The numbers rule-of-thumb is helpful and the explanation about bibliometrics even more so (NPROF is complicated!). I didn't even notice the copyvio issue; I was just focused on the GS cites. Thanks for looking into this. – Levivich 20:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. Since you recently reviewed Draft:Robert A. Olson and made comments about the subject's notability, and you've also been working on the Biografer cleanup, I thought you might want to know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Olson. BTW, I thought in the case of this particular article, it had been rephrased enough so that it wasn't a G12 of the NYTimes death notice cited in the article (like many other of these creations were), but you may have a different opinion on that. Cheers! – Levivich<
Hi! I saw you put some tags on the new article on Pamela E. Harris. I was just wondering if you could explain further. I thought that the several in-depth independent sources published over the span of 2 years ([4], [5], [6], [7]) would easily make her pass WP:GNG. I also don't see how this article could be described as WP:SENSATIONAL. Would be very grateful if you could provide and explanation and/or suggest what you would want to see improved to get the tags removed. Thanks! Achaea (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first notice is one of our standard multi-purpose notices, which , like so many of our notices , unfortunately does not specifically describe the situation. The relevant part is that I consider it written in a promotional style, suitable more for a web page than an encyclopedia. For example, it omits listing her published work .
The second is that I do not think she meets WP:PROF. She is not yet notable as a researcher. Most of her papers are uncited by other mathematical papers., except her own., or cited only for other reasons than the mathematics.It is possible to meet itWP:PROF as a teacher, but the awards are junior-level. But she apparently has received enough notice to meet the general notability standard, WP:GNG, which even for an academic is an alternative.
You will notice I did not nominate it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
could you be so kind as to comment Re my request for help[edit]
Hi DGG. Could you please advice about the following?
A month ago I created a wiki page 'Lodi ceramics', which you approved.
I would now like to edit the page 'Ceramic art', section 'History', subsection 'Europe'. I could add a sentence about Lodi ceramics in the Tin-glazed pottery sub-sub-section, but this sub-sub-section is so short that it would be much better to improve this section about tin-glazed pottery adding details about Italy and the 17th-18th century at least. However I don't have enough knowledge. Adding just a sentence about Lodi ceramics feels like adding a details to a background that is missing.
Alternatively, I could add a section at the bottom of the History-Europe section, titled 'Pottery in Italy', and just add the wikilink to Lodi ceramics. Similar sections already exist for Germany, Austria and Russia.
What do you advice?
Thanks in advance --Arkie Hodge (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arkie Hodge, do both. There's nothing wrong with a short section if it's in parallel with other sections. But in addition make links from the Lodi article. Within limits, the more cross-referencing the better,.
Try to provide for all the possibilities DGG ( talk ) 09:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I inadvertently put this in December, 2019 and then I realized it is January, 2020=))
DGG Hello, Mr. Goodman! I got back from my Christmas vacation and took my time to add a few notable book reviews to Hadnagy's draft with new sources added. It has more than 30 citations now and the text has been through significant updates and re-wording, according to your advice. Do you think it should be pending on review list or maybe you can take an extra look and let me know if there are still any issues there? If you say, it is good to go (or not), it might be helpful for a new user like me. I would really appreciate your knowledge and expertise.
Suchexams, you need at least to make the references a little fuller using the citeweb template to show where the reference comes from. Then the book reviews should be used as references for the books, using the quote=parameter of the cite template. I'll come around in a week and show you, if you haven't done it.
Also, take a careful look about wherethe reviews are comingf rom . some are more reliable than the others. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken on board the comments made by you and others relating to this article, made appropriate changes, and moved to mainspace. Can you please review and remove the rejection notice.
Thank you for your help! Please, see my new version!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki82esh (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this will take a few days. In the meantime, please double check for grammar, particularly tense. And I cannot quite identify just what prize the PM gave him. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten a paragraph in Eli Schechtman that was copied from the YIVO Encyclopedia article on Schechtman: the paragraph beginning "Although Shekhtman received several Israeli literary prizes", added in this edit by an IP (who I suppose may or not the same person as the editor predominantly responsible for the draft). Do you think you could have a look through the article for any other passages that might have similar issues? There are some close-ish paraphrases I think, but I was hoping to just do a quick copyedit and don't really have the time to look into it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had done a check against the print version, but I may have missed something., so I will check again. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! Please, see my new version "Draft:Eli Schechtman" Wiki82esh (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Came across a page of an individual that had a neutrality tag slapped on it in October 2018.
Says Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met.
There's a contentious talk page with a lot of discussion and at this point in time, I don't really know that much about him but I would like to work with you on improving the page.
Would this be ok? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
here. People here generally do not do work like this privately. All cooperation in WP ought to be public. And others may want to see what they think about it too. Nobody owns an article. Advice: in asking about something, always tell the person right away what it is. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. No problem! Adam Milstein. I see now that it's a page you've had some history with. I don't know anything about the subject or the history of the page which I think in theory would make me a ideal candidate to clean it up. I only came across it via Israeli-American_Council. If this is too complicated can just leave it. But if you think it's something that can be done, I'd love to do it with your counsel. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, thank you for your previous suggestions about Draft:Magnum Research Limited. I have updated third-party sources and added more information (e.g. product lines, cooperations, and licensing) to the page. Could you please review the draft page again, or let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article?--Ria-TAN1995 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ria-TAN1995: I've reviewed your article and declined it again due to some possible issues. I've also added some tags to the submission. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for reviewing my first draft of this page. I hope I have understood the feedback correctly and addressed it in my resubmission. If anything remains unsatisfactory I would be very grateful if you can let me know what is specifically the problem. Similarly your input on ways to improve the page would be appreciated.
Hi DGG, Thank you so much for taking the time to review and provide comments on my draft. I’m really sorry the article is lacking. I tried to be responsive to the first reviewer’s comments to substantiate notability, but perhaps the edits went too far in the other direction. I would really appreciate your expert advice in improving the page. Your comments are very helpful, and I will work on rewriting the article in a more encyclopedic format. Please let me know what else I can do to improve the article.
Marissascavuzzo (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marissascavuzzo, first step is to answer my question---since the article is written in the promotional style usually association with press releases, (for example, ...Tesar transitioned directly into an independent position back in his hometown... ; or talking about the many possible medical applications of the general field in which he works, ) you need to say if you have some conflict of interest, as we define it at WP:COI; in particular, if it should be the case that this involves payment of if you are in any way connected with his company or any firm working for it, you need to declare fully according to WP:PAID. And have you ever used any other username here? DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG! Thank you so much for your feedback and comments on the draft. I’m studying at the university and in the lab. I know Paul well, but have no affiliation with his company or any firm working for it. I also have not used another username here. My username is my name and my intent was never to be deceptive or to promote his company. I’m new to Wikipedia and am still learning the process and standards. Everything that I wrote was pulled from websites and press releases. But your comments about the style, tone, and content of the draft were very helpful and informative. I can definitely see how the article needs to be rewritten in a more neutral and encyclopedic tone. Again, my intention was never to be deceptive or for promotion purposes. I’m excited to work on this draft and continue to improve it according to Wikipedia’s standards. How should I proceed from here? Thank you again for your feedback and help, I really appreciate it. Marissascavuzzo (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Marissa Scavuzzo[reply]
Marissascavuzzo, Promotionalism is extremely common in our world, and --unfortunately — in Wikipedia. (There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove.) It is therefore quite possible for a good faith editor to write in such a style even without realizing it. ( I asked about the username because of some of the earlier editing on the article, whichwas clearly done by acounts that were not good faith editors) Now that you understand what needs to be fixed, fix it and resubmit. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, thank you so much for your advice and guidance on rewriting this draft. I really appreciate your help. I rewrote the article based on your feedback and comments. I mostly tried to make it more neutral and “encyclopedic” and took out some content to shorten it and highlight the most important parts of his research. Would you mind taking a look at the revision to see if I made the correct changes? I am happy to go back and make further edits based on your feedback. Any advice is greatly appreciated! Marissascavuzzo (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a draft written about this subject and it was declined for being advocacy. Please help me understand what specifically would need done to have this reviewed as a Wikipedia article. She is an advocate so I am not sure if that is why or if there is specific wording that is not allowed. I wrote the facts as stated in reliable sources but I obviously got something wrong and apologize for that. I am more than happy to work on the draft of you can give me some advice on what is needed. Thank you for the help. --Narksajax (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narksajax, content like "Boneta says that her love of farming began when her grandmother came to live with Boneta and her family. Her grandmother grew a large vegetable garden in the backyard, and this inspired Boneta to one day own a family farm" is puffery. Try to write in a more impersonal way, and then I'll let someone else review it. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thanks for moving the page 'Tel Ganesan' to Draftspace. I have been doing referencing with Wiki's autoreferencer to make citations from reliable sources. The references i have mentioned are from india's national medias. especially 1 & 2, India Today, News Today, Hindustan Times, The New India Express Etc. As the personality is an US-Indian there are numerous references are found in US based well known Newspaers, News websites like detroit free press , The Oakland press etc.
The citations are made carefully after getting step by step reviews of editors which was undergon since past 3 weeks.
So kindly reconsider the review going through the references posted and also guide me on any errors need to be rectified as i am a beginner.
All newspapers in all countries will sometimes run stories that are indistinguishable from promotion. The best newspapers are a little careful that the subject at least appears to justify it, and that what gets said has some resemblance to reality., but an interview is normally an opportunity for the founder or promotor to make a pitch for their product or service. Obtaining such articles and interviews is a primary job function of the higher class of press agents, and I sometimes think that what we measure here is not the notability of the subject but the skill and connections of the PR agent.
What I did was give you a chance to rescue the article; the alternative is that it would have been deleted, for a combination of promotionalism and not showing notability . Whether it becomes improved enough to be likely to pass AfD is up to you, and up to the possibilities of the sourcing for the subject., uSo, here's what to do:
First, you must declare whether or not you have a WWP:COI as we define it, for this, and for any other articles you may have written. In particular, if it should by any chance be a paid COI, see WP:PAID. Once you have told me this, we can go ahead and examine the references together. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thanks for the reply. I have understood your points. I have gone through the informations and i can understand what could journals do for promotion etc. As you have mentioned i have nowhere connected with this subject or anyother topics i have written so far. Also i have not involved in any kind of promotionalism or paid editing in this article and any other articles i have written. I just created articles about missing personalities and i am just learning about notability & references on living persons. It will be great you can examine and help me on creating such articles on living persons or personalities with proper & credible references which was missing. Thank you ! Jayreborn (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at the references, refs like 4, 7, and 21 are only incidentally about him; refs about the films are not directly about him, especially if they're from local newspapers--the role of "producer" can mean direct involvement, or just providing them oney; and I really have my doubts about whether the films themselves are notable. Refs 19,23, 24, are just listings. Anything from PR Newsrire or the link is PR, and not independent. Refs like 32 are press releases, as are many fo the others. The various honours in section 5 ar trivial--even E&Y 50 nationally is dubious for notability , and just for a US region all the more so, and for a nomination not an award, so trivial as to be better not included. Whether there will be enough of substance left to show notability is in my opinion doubtful. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. Since your review, I researched the subject more and found some more independent sources. I've included them as citations. I know that I've included some listings and links to the books the subject has co-authored with his wife, but I thought they would work as proof alongside the independent articles that have been published about him. Is that not right?
Also, you have asked me to remove the PR articles, but I tried to be careful about not including any press releases, self-written and published articles by the subject, or his own companies' websites. Can you please point out which ones you found to be PR? Perhaps I am not looking at them as I should, but it would be really helpful for this article and the ones I'll write in future.
Looking again at it, FelixtheNomad, I do not really think there is enough in the way of substantial accomplishments that it will be possible to show notability . Refs 6, 12 & 13 are examples of PR; refs 21-27 are mere notices of awards, 28 is inclusion in an unreliable directory. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, thank you so much for this. This is a very specific response that will go a long way in understanding the kind of references and citations I should use. Now I can study the ones you've marked out once again to see what makes them 'unusable' for Wikipedia entries. However, there is one little question, if you would indulge me. In cases such as this one, is it better to create a 'stub' rather than a full article if the subject is not notable enough? FelixtheNomad (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wanted to follow up on this draft that you rejected two months ago. An article was published about a month ago briefly covering the subject's sales over the Christmas period. First, would this article satisfy your definition of a "true news story" as you previously stated here and second, would any of that info lend credibility to the size of the subject's operation or otherwise help towards satisfying WP:GNG in your opinion? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 11:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a true news story, but it isn't substantially about the subject. It's about gift cards, and they're one of the people/firms who comment. If the firm is actually notable , there should be better. You're an experienced paid editor--did you realize the weakness in the refs but decided to give the job a try anyway? DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC) .[reply]
I recognised that the refs weren't the strongest, but felt there might still be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, at least from the perspective of another editor. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 09:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Davykamanzi , The standard for acceptanceof a draft is whether the article would pass AfD. I try to go by what I think the consensus would be at AfD, but I know I am not infallible—and AfD can be a little unpredictable. . Therefore, if I've declined a draft, unless there's some special issue i want to follow up, I leave further reviews to another editor. As a suggestion, if you want to make the article stronger, you might want to look for some references for information about the financial success of the firm.
I see this subject noted in several articles and cited in several more. I'd be happy to have help on it or direction where to merge it if there is an appropriate target. Seems worth including. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this one is a problem. I'll try to find someone who can help. There's always a problem for sourcing with articles about confederations of organizations, so I tend to be very permissive with these. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for reviewing the draft.
I rewrote and removed some parts that read like an advertisement or does not use a neutral point of view. I also added more independent, reliable and secondary references or sources. Please check if this is acceptable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurdivon (talk • contribs) 00:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They have an overview, description, survey and analysis/commentary from the writer. Can these be considered as substantial coverage? Aurdivon (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was totally unfair and in violation of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH because (a) it is just a stub, and stubs are given time, lots of time. (b) It's a topic based on BIBLE verses from the Book of Deuteronomy. (c) I subsequently added two Biblical sources from Deuteronomy Chapter 7 verses 2-3 and Chapter 20 verses 16-18. (d) I am currently editing from my mobile phone which is hard enough but that makes it very difficult to utilize Wikipedia's referencing tools. (e) As an exeperienced WP editor in good standing for over 17 years I am well-aware of WP policies and I certainly qualify as as a WP:EXPERT editor who knows what he is doing. Finally, (f) User:Jmertel should have contacted me on on my talk page instead of coming across as a boderline violater of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
Thanks for hearing me out and for all your patience.
Please restore the Seven Nations (Bible) stub as soon as possible. I have asked some other editors to help out to improve the stub, hopefully they will. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sure; it needs secondary sources also, but some can simply be copied over from the other article. can you find the actual reference in Maimonides given in ref 34 of the Judaism and Wars article, and add it there. If it means what I think it does, it's a clever redefinition of "extermination" to mean what we would now call Cultural assimilation. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IZAK: Please see my response on my talk page (trying to keep the discussion in one place for clarity). Thanks! Jmertel23 (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG,
I politely have to disagree with the judgement of being advertising due to the following reasons:
The machine has not been produced for many years and is even out of support (i.e. no spare parts are produced anymore)
The article does not endorse this device. In the opposite, it mentions its primary competing product line and mentions that the same task can be performed by essentially all chromatography systems and that the advantages only are in the specialization (some tasks are easier on this device than on general purpose chromatography systems)
Even though I am an end user of the device, I am in no way affiliated with GE Healthcare. On the opposite, I have problems with them as imho they do misuse their duopoly position to the disadvantage of academic research (which does not have as much financial resources as the pharmaceutical industry).
It is a big problem, that there is hardly any independent information about these devices available on the internet, even though they play a central and important role in the pharmaceutical industry: namely in the purification of Biopharmaceuticals/biologics, which is the fastest growing class of drugs (every second cancer drug is meanwhile a "biologic").
What specific additions would convince you to NOT classify the article as advertising? This question is not rhetoric as I would like to get your honest answer! Notwithstanding now the fact that it is very rudimentary, but that's why Wikipedia exist that the community (including me) can improve on it over the next days, weeks and months.
I started to use the machine when it was introduced to the market (in 1994) had am still using it occasionally today. I have been teaching university courses about its use in protein purification. But again, there is no information about these devices on the internet (except for the vendors own info). The vendor has tried to start some online "community" about five years back, but without success. The device (and also its newer incarnations) is used mostly in proprietary (secretive) environments such as the pharmaceutical industry; maybe that's why these efforts have never taken off.
Thank you for your contribution, but I will try to get this article accepted with all the necessary modifications to fulfill the spirit of Wikipedia. I am just a very occasional contributor to Wikipedia. While the culture of Wikipedia is well know to frequent contributors, it is very different to e.g. the culture that I am used to (i.e. the world of scientific publication).
I first must apologize --I seem to have clicked the wrong button--I meant only to have it considered for deletion. I never actually delete for reasons of promotionalism single-handed, but either nominate and let another admin to check my judgment and delete, or look at the ones other people have nominated and then delete if appropriate. The intention is to avoid just such mistakes as this.
You are quite right--I judged too quickly--it looks a little the way a promotional article might look, but it isn't promotional, for the reasons you've given. (most articles on products submitted here are in fact intended as disguised advertisements, and it's all too easy to just look at the new articles as if everything that might possibly be promotional is in fact an advertisement. ) (I've restored it of course)
as it happens, I'm a molecular biologist myself & I've taught biochemistry and I can easily appreciate what the device does, though in my lab days 50 years ago things were considerably more primitive. I'm not sure though, you can really make a sustainable article for this particular brand of the device. I se our article on Fast protein liquid chromatography, which is written in a brand-neutral way, but mentions only Pharmacia . I think our readers would best be served by expanding the general article to cover in outline the two different lines of machines You could then make redirects from the different brand names. Since for specialized products like this the articles would necessarily have good deal of common material, and the differences between various brans and models can be explained briefly. I think it important to mention all the models, because in reading a scientific paper, people will come across the name in the methods section, and look under its name for some sort of explanation. If you need any help in organizing this, let me know .
I'm always glad to have a bad example of what happens when I work too fast or carelessly, because I can use it as a teaching example when trying to guide other reviewers. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea to move the stuff to the general FPLC article and have a forward sounds reasonable to me. I will proceed in that direction when I find the time (hopefully soon). Mjeltsch (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At your suggestion I've created Draft:Northern Transmissions which is ready for review. In the course of creating it I discovered the url is blacklisted. I was unsuccessful in having it removed [8] so I have created the page without any references to the url. Since this page is about a website I can understand that a page without any references to url may not meet certain standards. Please advise. Thank you. Henry A-W (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Henry A-W, I could add the link, butthere needs to be much more in the way of information and sources. If questions about the link are preventing you from adding more, addmore, & if it is sufficient, I'll add the link. I hope you can find more for it seems reasonable that we shoudl have an article. (You were also reminded a question about COI, btw, ) DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
== Ari Rastegar Draft Page ==
Hi DGG,
I've trimmed down more WP:PROMO content from the draft page. What else do you consider advertising on the draft? Texatexan (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the first thing I need to ask you, is whether you have any WP:COI as we define it?
The main reason for my declining to accept the article was that it does not show notability . Almost all the references are things he wrote himself, or press releases, or interviews in which he says whatever he cares to--such interviews are not independent sources, such as e-ssuite and Forbes. The Forbes article, by the way, is not under their editorial supervision, but by a "contributor" . That's the way they indicate that they know it's PR. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment on Draft:Laia Cabrera : "There are serious problems with the article's non-encyclopedic style , and those are what need to be fixed".
I am not an native english speaker (French) and although I have been creating the article thouroughly with references and creating a structure that is logical and solid, my formulations are not as precise as I wish they were, and would definitely benefit from a collaborator that would review the syntax. Let me know if there is a possibility there.
Thank you!
Yessa Deouve, February 10, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessadeouve (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made major changes to Draft:Russell S Surasky: removed promotional tone and improved references. Can you please take another look at the draft and provide suggestions on how to make it ready for mainspace? Thanks a lot in advance! BhasSpeak (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I'll move and respond to it here.
You wrote:
"promotionalism
"Are you realy sure you meant to restore the full to a bio article? DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
Actually, not exactly. But I felt it was the best way to respond to your two original edits. So let's discuss.
First, you tagged the entire article with an "advertisement" claim. Then you removed what you believed to be advertisements. But then you left the advertisement tag? I'm sure you understand that looks like trying to have it both ways. If you tag something you see as a problem, then fix the problem, why wouldn't you remove the tag? Or was that simply something you overlooked when you were done?
Second, I also respectfully disagree with you in some other areas as well; and I'm happy to explain those.
1) I honestly haven't ever seen an advertising tag on a BLP before. What "product" do you feel is being advertised? Of course, I would understand if [Tim Cook|Tim Cook's] bio talked too much about the release of the next iPhone. That's a product that's for sale. But that doesn't apply here. So I felt the tag was inappropriate. Of course, I've seen BLPs with the "resume" tag when they're just dry recitations. But that isn't the case here either. And severe edits shouldn't cause it either.
2) I know you'll agree that by definition, a BLP is a biography. So why remove either a relevant WP:RS biographical quote, or an RS quote explaining something noteworthy in the BLP? You also removed half the RS honors and awards in a way that seemed abitrary.
Also I see you've "subsequently" (see what I did there :) made 2 new edits and invited discussion. So let's discuss those.
In your first edit you removed a quote because you said it was: "unreliable sourced material removed from BLP-- based on hisword only." Are you saying the source was unreliable? Because the RS was a university website. If you're saying that he himself is unreliable because it was "his word only," I believe that's acceptable (WP:BLPSELFPUB) for a brief but relevant quote about his own upbringing. There are also separate RS in the paragraph right before it, (which you also wanted to remove). There are RS links to 2 of his siblings and they both confirmed his quote on the university website.
And in your last edit you removed what you called an advert.
I'm always happy to collaborate and compromise. So let's try:
1) I agree we remove the last quote you took out. It's 2 sentences, but if you feel strongly then fine. In return, I'd like to keep his quote. I think it's interesting and important. I'll include it's from an interview, so it's not like he's just waxing nostalgic.
2) I also agree the daughters ref can be trimmed. Just listing their names is fine. I've already done that.
3) I think the list of Honors should remain intact because it's consistent with other university president BLPs, which list either honors or publications a bit, but not both. Like here,
here, here, or here.
That covers it, I think. If you have anything else, let me know. Otherwise, agreed? X4n6 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking generally: my main field of interest here is academic biographies, and I'm concerned in making sure that the non-notable ones do not get included, that the notable ones show clearly the encyclopedic notability, and that encyclopedia articles don't look like promotionalism. As in other fields, probably most academic bios here are written by coi editors, sometimes the subjects themselves, occasionally enthusiastic students, but much more frequently university or department PR staff. As in other fields, promotionalism is so widespread both in the world and in Wikipedia that itis very easy for a person writing without coi in perfect good faith to write in a similarly promotional style. Promotional writing is what the subject would like readers to know about himself, in contrast to encyclopedic writing, which is what a general reader might want to know.
1) the "advertisement" tag is used for promotionalism in general. It's meant as a signal that editing is needed, not a condemnation. Articles containing promotional quotes are promotional, but fixable. Articles containing excess irrelevant personal material are promotional --they're what people or their employers like to say about themselves. What a reader cares about, is what the person's professional background is, and why the person's professional work is significant.
2) Of course we list awards and publications . We list major awards and the most important publications. Listing minor awards does not add to notability , but detracts from it, because it takes away attention from the important accomplishments. There are only 2 types of publications that list every award: CVs, where the current custom in academic CVs is to list everything possible, but WP is not a place for publishing CVs; and promotional write ups by PR staff which list everything they may think sounds impressive, but WP is an encyclopedia not a place for making people look important. Nobody outside themselves or their own university cares about local awards or minor publications. Nobody except those who know them care about their family's accomplishments--or, for that matter, their children's names.
3) A person's own statements when published by a responsible source are accepted for the routine plain facts about their life--the sort of thing that can in principle by cross-checked. hat they say about their motivations is what they want to have said, and is not always trustworthy, for they tend to exaggerate. to the extent sometimes of self-puffery.
4) Details are usually discussed on the article talk page, which is where I started this discussion. I'm not here to negotiate content, but to improve articles, and I improve them to the extent that is practical. Consider this as advice, and if we still disagree, we can continue there. and if necessary ask for other opinions. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You addressed several areas, in general terms, which merit a response. So, in order to make this a colloquy and not a disquisition, I'll respond to those here and save specific concerns about the article for its talk page.
It seems you've fashioned yourself to be a kind of anti-promotionalism heat seeking missile seeking out the scourge that is promotionalism in academic entries. Hyperbolic as that sounds, it's not intended as criticism. There are several editors on this project who perform a very narrow set of functions and they perform them very well. In fact, it's a laudatory exercise if coi influence in academic articles is as pervasive a problem as you make it sound. For me, more often than not I encounter academic BLPs that are little more than stubs. Almost as though someone recognized the individual was notable, but wasn't interested in the time it took to do a deep dive. They just wanted the individual listed in the encyclopedia.
By contrast, I'm a long-term, but not particularly prolific editor, who endeavors for quality over quantity. I'd rather write 10 articles that are well-written, well-sourced, encyclopedic, yet interesting reads, than write 1000 that are boilerplate just to increase my new article count. Of course articles must be encyclopedic, but that doesn't require that they be dry. And a well-placed and appropriate quote accomplishes that. Just as a picture is worth a thousand words, so too can a good quote be far more informative than dry prose. Regarding self-quotes, obviously they can be problematic. But a brief, well-chosen self-quote can also be informative and encyclopedic.
Regarding awards and publications, you mentioned your primary interest is in the academic biographies. Mine are in universities, university administrators, entertainment personalities and other bios. In the entertainment field, persons with an enormous number of awards will have separate articles just for cataloguing those awards. I have not seen that with academic bios. Although I do recall an article with a very long list of honorary doctorates. I've also encountered lengthy bibliographies and long lists of academic awards. As I mentioned prior, I don't think these do much for the article either. The reader certainly won't read them all. It just makes the staffer or academic who wrote their own article feel they've demonstrated how accomplished they are. But there is a middle ground between too little and too much of the lists and that's where I try to work.
I've encountered editors who automatically approach every article with the general rule that 50% of every article can be removed. Reliably sourced or not. As though they're somehow saving "space." Yet I've never seen a Good Article that could be read in thirty seconds or four paragraphs. Trimming the fat always makes sense. Amputating a limb just to make the whole lighter makes no sense.
Your comment regarding not being here to negotiate but to improve, sounded like a rejection of collaboration and compromise in favor of an only you know best approach, that I found of some concern. Perhaps you didn't mean it to sound that way, or maybe you did. I suppose we'll cross that Rubicon when/if we come to it. But improving articles is why I'm here too. The work I've done should make that clear. I'm no one's PR. I'm just aiming for encyclopedic, informative and interesting articles for the reader. X4n6 (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG,
I politely have to disagree with the judgement of being advertising due to the following reasons:
The machine has not been produced for many years and is even out of support (i.e. no spare parts are produced anymore)
The article does not endorse this device. In the opposite, it mentions its primary competing product line and mentions that the same task can be performed by essentially all chromatography systems and that the advantages only are in the specialization (some tasks are easier on this device than on general purpose chromatography systems)
Even though I am an end user of the device, I am in no way affiliated with GE Healthcare. On the opposite, I have problems with them as imho they do misuse their duopoly position to the disadvantage of academic research (which does not have as much financial resources as the pharmaceutical industry).
It is a big problem, that there is hardly any independent information about these devices available on the internet, even though they play a central and important role in the pharmaceutical industry: namely in the purification of Biopharmaceuticals/biologics, which is the fastest growing class of drugs (every second cancer drug is meanwhile a "biologic").
What specific additions would convince you to NOT classify the article as advertising? This question is not rhetoric as I would like to get your honest answer! Notwithstanding now the fact that it is very rudimentary, but that's why Wikipedia exist that the community (including me) can improve on it over the next days, weeks and months.
I started to use the machine when it was introduced to the market (in 1994) had am still using it occasionally today. I have been teaching university courses about its use in protein purification. But again, there is no information about these devices on the internet (except for the vendors own info). The vendor has tried to start some online "community" about five years back, but without success. The device (and also its newer incarnations) is used mostly in proprietary (secretive) environments such as the pharmaceutical industry; maybe that's why these efforts have never taken off.
Thank you for your contribution, but I will try to get this article accepted with all the necessary modifications to fulfill the spirit of Wikipedia. I am just a very occasional contributor to Wikipedia. While the culture of Wikipedia is well know to frequent contributors, it is very different to e.g. the culture that I am used to (i.e. the world of scientific publication).
I first must apologize --I seem to have clicked the wrong button--I meant only to have it considered for deletion. I never actually delete for reasons of promotionalism single-handed, but either nominate and let another admin to check my judgment and delete, or look at the ones other people have nominated and then delete if appropriate. The intention is to avoid just such mistakes as this.
You are quite right--I judged too quickly--it looks a little the way a promotional article might look, but it isn't promotional, for the reasons you've given. (most articles on products submitted here are in fact intended as disguised advertisements, and it's all too easy to just look at the new articles as if everything that might possibly be promotional is in fact an advertisement. ) (I've restored it of course)
as it happens, I'm a molecular biologist myself & I've taught biochemistry and I can easily appreciate what the device does, though in my lab days 50 years ago things were considerably more primitive. I'm not sure though, you can really make a sustainable article for this particular brand of the device. I se our article on Fast protein liquid chromatography, which is written in a brand-neutral way, but mentions only Pharmacia . I think our readers would best be served by expanding the general article to cover in outline the two different lines of machines You could then make redirects from the different brand names. Since for specialized products like this the articles would necessarily have good deal of common material, and the differences between various brans and models can be explained briefly. I think it important to mention all the models, because in reading a scientific paper, people will come across the name in the methods section, and look under its name for some sort of explanation. If you need any help in organizing this, let me know .
I'm always glad to have a bad example of what happens when I work too fast or carelessly, because I can use it as a teaching example when trying to guide other reviewers. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea to move the stuff to the general FPLC article and have a forward sounds reasonable to me. I will proceed in that direction when I find the time (hopefully soon). Mjeltsch (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 01:58:00, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by JMmelegrito[edit]
Hello, Thank you very much for reviewing my draft article and I certainly appreciate the opinion of an expert Wikieditor.
Just for the record, I'm neither working nor connected to TAP DMV and its employees.
May I ask what are the things that should be changed on the draft article? If there is a need for citation on the information, particularly on each of the channels, I have DVR recordings to show as a proof.
Also, If my Wikipedia article has not been approved, then why is the TAP Sports article, which contains far less details and contains only one reference, has been approved?
The question isn't existence, but whether there are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAP Sports. There are several 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. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*******
Request on 06:17:06, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Marilen.buenviaje[edit]
I already said at the article what to do, so do it. Watch out for adjectives of excellence or praise--they do not belong in an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your comment just now at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Brianboulton/drafts#User:Brianboulton/drafts. I cannot understand what is going on there. I just posted a link to the page in question. I have now successfully provided fully labeled redirects pointing to each of the drafts left by this user. Also, I created a sub-directory for all such drafts, so that any editor at all can get a comprehensive list of the full set of drafts, merely by using this template.
furthermore, I made the sub-page as a sub-page for the page for all deceased Wikipedians; in other words, any other such drafts can be added to the same sub-directory, so it will be easier for such editing efforts to proceed, since we have one centralized location to view them.
can you please go back and respond to the editor there who just replied? he linked to a past version of that page, instead of the current version which I had already updated. please feel free to follow both links, and then to reply. you are welcome to reply or to contact me any time. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted my comment accordingly Thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
actually, your initial comment was totally fine and totally accurate. I would suggest that you please reinstate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but at this point I'm really a little confused. I'll look at it tomorrow when I'm more alert. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We got a notification from wikipedia that says deleted page Draft:Neeyamo (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, noticed that the request to deletion was initiated by you. We look at having a company page without any promotions with respect to the wikipedia guidelines. Can you please help us get back the deleted article and also let us know if there is anything that any content that have to be removed for a green signal to conversion into a wiki page? Irenejones2009 Irenejones2009, who is us and we ? Only individuals must edit, so I assume you are a representative of the company. If so, you must make the appropriate declaration according to WP:COI and WP:PAID. After that, we can discuss it further. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG,
Read both COI & PAID and have declared accordingly. Can the wiki page go live?
*******
Thank you for reviewing - Draft:Airoll (Vehicle). As per your comments some sections have been reworded as to avoid paraphrasing and an etymology section has been added to discuss the naming of the vehicle. Please let me know if any other changes are needed.
*******
At the time of the request, the draft had not been edited in just short of six months. I responded to them that it would likely be automatically deleted in a few days.
However, you edited the article in the interim resetting the six-month clock.
While they were willing to accept a few days delay, my guess is they won't be happy to hear that it will take at least another six months.
Do you have any particular thoughts?
I suppose I can nominate for AFD but I wanted to check with you first.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me look. It will take a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, DGG. I am following up on edits to the draft Granite_Telecommunications (see "Perplexed" above). We discussed the needed changes in December and I made the edits you requested at the time. Since the volume of interaction with you and the community is significant, I've quietly watching for updates. But now that we're coming up on a couple of months since the edits were made, I figure I should squeak, so I'm checking in to see if there's anything else I need to do. Also, I do plan to help with other business pages as you indicated is needed (especially since everyone's doing what I did -- make a page that looks like the other pages). In fact, I had been actively editing a range of content over the latter part of last year. But I held back since I wasn't looking for the things that you have pointed out to me here. I'll pick that back up when I see how this page nets out and I am confident that I'm not just replacing one bad edit with another... Thanks. Technutt (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
following up saturday or sunday, because you're doing good work and i want to clarify my comments in some detail, and discuss some related general issues. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Sounds good. I'll check in after the weekend then. Thanks. Technutt (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
still working on it. I'm much more behind than usual. I may have to skip a few NYC editathons to catch up. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Caught up myself -- I think we all are at this time... Crazy. If I should resubmit the page we are working on as a keep-alive, let me know. And I'll keep checking in. Ironically, and not for the best of reasons, it appears that I may have some extra time to help out some more here over this next bit. But aside from any of this stuff, I hope you and your loved ones are all doing well at this time. Stay safe. Technutt (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, DGG -- following up here on the edits to the Granite_Telecommunications page and some observations you had on other pages so I don't swap one bad edit for another. Let me know how to proceed. Thanks. Technutt (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG. Hope you are well. I noticed you put Eleiko up on AfC submission. What is the article missing and do you have any tips on how I can sort it out?
Best, Kjell1918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjell1918 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft. I read the reason that you rejected it (a lack of significant coverage) and included four more reputable citations that feature Silver as the main subject, not just a passing mention. I also condensed some of the language in his biography so that every fact is backed up directly by a reputable source. I would love to get your thoughts on what more could be done or if you think that this is sufficient - want to follow the rules and create a quality page! Draft:Ron Silver (chef)MiaF1213 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DGG, for reviewing my entry on Noma Copley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Noma_Copley) and for your feedback. I've revised according to that feedback, removing all "peacock terms" and making the language more formal. I also added a few additional citations that underscore the notability of the subject. I resubmitted the entry for consideration. I hope that you will find that this revised version meets all the criteria for acceptance. I look forward to your response. Thanks.Gaw54 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to pester you for a second review, but I am anxious to confirm whether or not I'm on the right track with this entry. I would very much appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to give my entry on Noma Copley another look. She has for too long been in the shadow of her former husband, William Copley, whose Wiki entry contributes, in my opinion, to her marginalization. I'm looking forward to being able to add a link to that Wiki page that enables readers to learn about his partner's role in activities for which he is being given sole credit. Thank you in advance. Gaw54 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gaw54, before I had the opportunity to get there , an excellent reviewer, Schwede66, has accepted it and is workin on it further. I may have a chance to do some additional removal of promotional wording. You could help by changing the mentions of her by her first name to her last, and replacing at least half of them by "she" , and decreasing the namedropping . DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. The use of first names is to distinguish Noma from her (ex)husband Bill and are only used when they are both mentioned. I'll take a look for other places where "she" can be used. I'm not sure what you mean by dropping the namedropping. The context both in which and with whom she worked is important to her story, as are the names of the artists who were in her collection. That's what defines a notable collection. One question: can you explain why Carroll O'Conner is in red rather than linking to the Wiki page for him? Thanks again for taking time to review.Gaw54 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how are you?
why you move this article to draft?
I think this person has notability in Wikipedia
this person is the spokesperson to MFA in turkey
all these sources talks weekly about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadqatari (talk • contribs) 11:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC) *******[reply]
Dear DGG. In my ignorance I appended a message for you in your Archive for September 2019 as that was the last time we corresponded. I have copied the text I inserted below. The only comment I would add to it is that I am having great difficulty in obtaining independent external evidence of the use of ROADEX technologies on public road networks as the average engineer and employing organisation involved do not normally publish such information. Engineers need to promote their work more in this regard and the ROADEX project is actively encouraging this. That said, any help/guidance you can give will be much appreciated. The text I appended in your September Archive was:
Dear DGG. Thanks again for your comments and letting me know about the help available on Teahouse. I made some changes to the ROADEX page in Sandbox following your comments and used it to replace the Draft in December. I am now picking up the page again to try to improve it further. Can I ask if you would be able to look over the current version and possibly give some advice on what is still needed? Editing Wikipedia is still a very new art to me! With best regards Ronmun (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eonmun, Promotional writing tells the audience what the subject would like them to know. Encyclopedic writing tells the audience what they would reasonably want to know and expect to find in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic writing is directed to the general public who might come across the subject and want to find some objective information.
What people would reasonably like to know, is what the project has actually accomplished, and, perhaps, what it is in the process of accomplishing or plans to accomplish, in specific terms. What nobody outside the project and its supporters care about
What nobody but PR people would ever write or anyone including them would want to read is jargon such as "widest possible context." or " have been designed to help learning in the workplace and in academic institutions. All four are available in the main partner languages to encourage dissemination and implementation." "continuing to carry out joint research in areas of common interest." or " state-of-the-art surveys "or "Its aim was to move the ROADEX collaboration further" or " the web-based e-learning suite of four e-learning lessons " Nor does anyone, particularly an encyclopedia, want puffery such as "Such has been the success of the PEHKO project, and the potential operational savings it offers, that it was awarded ..". Just say what they were awards--most people know without being explicitly told that awards go to things that are deemed successes. The guide to avoid promotional wording is to say what you mean in the terms you would use in telling a person what you do.
It does matter which countries and agencies support the project. It's worth stating once, but not both in a table and in text. It does not matter to anyone but the staff how often the committee meets, nor how many of the meeting are on Skype
say partners , not Partners; don't keep repeating "ROADEX", try "the project" (not "the Project") or, even better, "it"
And, even more important, almost all the references are from the project itself. We need 3rd party references. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, Thank you for your suggestions. I accept them all. I needed the guidance and will take a fresh look at the draft page.Ronmun (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, Thank you for your note regarding conflict of interest. I have a statement at my User:Ronmun. Do I need to say more?Ronmun (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback on my submission Robert S. Gailey, and for the edits you made on Jan 31st. I'm curious if you think I satisfied the Neutral Point of View with my edits on Jan 4th after your initial feedback. I cut out promotional terms and tried to focus on the publications and their impact.
soundingwell, what you now need to do is establish his notability as a scholar by checking in Google Scholar ofr th equivalent to see how much his peer-reviewed articles have bee cited. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply DGG. I did have a sentence on the number of citations in the "Career" section, but let me know if you think I should move it, perhaps to the intro, if you think it should be more of the focus of the article. I've also updated it to reference Google Scholar instead of Research Gate as that appears to have a more complete listing.
Am I missing something, because the opening paragraphs of the text seem more like an attack section than anything else. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Vernon, you know, it read as self-promotion, but having read it twice I think you may be right: it is either spam by someone who has unusually low levels of self-awareness, or a rather clever piss-take by someone who doesn't like him.Guy (help!) 22:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG What is the best way to proceed? DB-attack (removing the AfD)? Courtesy blanking? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
people can have various combination of possibly friendly insults, and we have no way to tell either the actual intent, or the way it will be taken. People even say it about themselves, as a way of boasting.
As a separate issue, there is a tradition of unambiguous promotionalism in fields like self-help which make a point of how sinful the person was in their earlier life, and in the arts of how creatively they still misbehave
and, even more difficult, clever PR people sometimes deliberately include it in articles here, so they can defend against deletion at AfD, and they are sometimes successful. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for looking at Draft:Benevity. I'm confused by the move into draft space, why this instead of adding maintenance tags or AfD, with no discussion on talk prior to the move?
I disagree completely on it being 'undersourced' as a) there is no unsourced material in the article, and b) it has many significant, independent, reliable, secondary sources, in my opinion more than enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. While it may sound promotional, a) this is simply a reflection of the reliable sources and b) I don't believe that a promotional tone justifies removing the article from the namespace.
I'm annoyed that a consensus of one was able to remove this article from the encyclopedia, and that it will now have to undergo a long bureaucratic process rather than being improved in the namespace (my first time dealing with AfC - maybe I'm wrong). Thank you. -M.Nelson (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD. The etiquette about moving pages during deletion and review discussions is also good advice.
I ask that you revert the article to the mainspace and that we move to AfD if necessary. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, moving on. From DRAFTIFY I found WP:ADMINACCT
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed. [emphasis mine]
Please follow the administrator accountability policy and respond to my above queries. If you will not reinstate the article per WP:DRAFTIFY, please explain to me why DRAFTIFY does not apply to this scenario. Thank you. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
reply forthcoming, but it will take a few days. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother, but any update? Currently it feels like the effort I spent researching and writing this article was for naught, which is demoralizing and suggests to me that I shouldn't bother the next time that the article-writing itch hits. Thanks -M.Nelson (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
M.nelson, my fault entirely. apparently I am trying to do too much, and cannot keep up with the necessary responses. I'm trying to correct this. .Reply in process. watch this space tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the main difficulty for Wikipedia is the widespread presence of promotionalism ... In dealing with this, we try to find intermediate solutions between tagging an article, but never being able to follow up, and deleting it altogether. The current method is the use of draft space. It has in most respects been quite successful-- all articles by new editors get submitted there, and we can keep track of what gets improved and what does not. The use of draft space also opens the participation in this process to non-admins. Anyone can move an article to draft, not just admins, and the process of accepting articles from draft is done by a those editors who hold the AFCH permission, as well as admins. All in al, its a fairer and more effective than our earlier ways of dealing with this (It has problems, such as the delays, but about half the articles now get reviewed almost immediately). Another problem, common to other areas in WP , is the use of templates. They're necessary to handle the work, and as a guide for less experienced reviewers, . but the wording does not always apply.
There are several ways of looking at what promotionalism consists of: Promotional articles (and web sites) tell the reader what the company (or other subject) would like them to know; in contrast, encyclopedia articles say what the general public might reasonable want to know, having heard of the organization or other subject. Promotional writing is directed towards employees or potential employees or supporter or potential supporters, clients or potential clients.
Looking at the draft, I do consider it inadvertently worded in a promotional way. This is particularly difficult to avoid in companies of this sort--those directed to b-to-b services, and claiming to produce social as well as commercial benefits The best way for me to explain this is to modify it and then accept it, which I have just done. Part of the delay was my difficulty in figuring out how to deal with a case of writing in a clearly promotional style from an editor who had not done so previously. If you do not like what I have done, you may of course add it back, but consider first the most neutral way to word it: I sometimes say that encyclopedic writing should be concise, cold, dull, and descriptive. If you do add it back, I shall not argue, but might use afd in the old way. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to re-review and make changes as well as approving the AFC. I have a different opinion than you on some of the changes but I'll leave them in as bold improvements to the article.
However I'm not all that satisfied with the process we went through. If I was a new editor you might not have assumed good faith, and if I hadn't known enough about WP policy/politics I may not have been able to prompt your response. I found this experience frustrating and demoralizing, and it was nearly enough to chase me away from the project (fortunately I was stubborn enough to pester you and eventually resolve the issue). I wouldn't be surprised if other editors in the same position (especially greener editors) would pack up and leave.
I feel WP:DRAFTIFY is very thorough and correctly interprets many aspects of WP policy like AGF, BOLD, GNG, COI, and Consensus. This part is extremely clear but wasn't followed:
Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD.
If DRAFTIFY is not an accurate interpretation of WP policy then it should be changed (via consensus) rather than simply disregarded. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, I left a note in the discussion on Articles for deletion/PayActiv but thought perhaps here might be a better forum for updates. We appreciate the re-review of the article and are open to helping our situation. Can we work to reduce or remove the promotional language on the TALK page of the article and make our suggested edits? We want to follow policy and best practice. Let me know if there are recommendations outside of additional credible sources and language removal to be made. Thank you LucyArn (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LucyArn, do you really think it reasonable to ask a volunteer engaged in dozens of other things to work with you personally so that you will be paid for the job you have undertaken for the benefit of an outside firm? The best advice I can give you is that it is rare, but possible, for someone with their experience in PR to be able to write acceptable NPOV WP articles, even when they work as a volunteer, because the mindset is different. It is almost never possible for someone paid for the job to write a WP article that will satisfy both their employer and Wikipedia , because the company wants to spread the good new about their services, and the encyclopedia wants to meet the needs of the public who might want to find out something objective. There is an overlap, to be sure, but the two ends are incompatible. Really good PR people know to work with other media than ours. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
..didn't gather enough support for inclusion @ its 2nd discussion at articles for deletion you were the only other than myself so much as to mention that his 1st book had just then been published @ the cambridge university press. Second's going to be published in a few (hey! literally 3) days but's already got a half dozen reviews. Instead of - as I did today - pushing the draft into mainspace, Should - rather - I'd brought the question up in a deletion review do you think?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the best way would have been to ask me to move it into mainspace. (Deletion Review is a last resort) I think it will stand up as far as notability is concerned, and I'll check it for any possible improvements. If it gets listed for AfD, let me know, because there are too any for me to follow otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm! um kay. Tried a re-drafifying mv to Draft:Benjamin Park only to have a double-direct fixer, perhaps, bot automatically move it back again. If you could "toolkit" it to there for me -- (Say - back to here?: diff -- I'd really appreciate it--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't understand. I do think it is good enough to stay, even though you moved it irregularly. I will edit it further perhaps. I removed the book reviews he wrote --they're generallyv too minor to count. What we do need is reviews of his books. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hoo wee! Not for nothing, but now, with this this thenewyorker review), I think I'd agree w historian will bagley's sentiment (kindly expressed to ben's fb wall) that his very fresh 'ascent' is now "higher on the writer/historian peak than anyone else in Mormon Studies" (even richard bushman's?)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, I left a note in the discussion on Articles for deletion/PayActiv but thought perhaps here might be a better forum for updates. We appreciate the re-review of the article and are open to helping our situation. Can we work to reduce or remove the promotional language on the TALK page of the article and make our suggested edits? We want to follow policy and best practice. Let me know if there are recommendations outside of additional credible sources and language removal to be made. Thank you LucyArn (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LucyArn, do you really think it reasonable to ask a volunteer engaged in dozens of other things to work with you personally so that you will be paid for the job you have undertaken for the benefit of an outside firm? The best advice I can give you is that it is rare, but possible, for someone with their experience in PR to be able to write acceptable NPOV WP articles, even when they work as a volunteer, because the mindset is different. It is almost never possible for someone paid for the job to write a WP article that will satisfy both their employer and Wikipedia , because the company wants to spread the good new about their services, and the encyclopedia wants to meet the needs of the public who might want to find out something objective. There is an overlap, to be sure, but the two ends are incompatible. Really good PR people know to work with other media than ours. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
..didn't gather enough support for inclusion @ ts 2nd discussion at articles for deletion you were the only other than myself so much as to mention that his 1st book had just then been published @ the cambridge university press. Second's going to be published in a few (hey! literally 3) days but's already got a half dozen reviews. Instead of - as I did today - pushing the draft into mainspace, Should - rather - I'd brought the question up in a deletion review do you think?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the best way would have been to ask me to move it into mainspace. (Deletion Review is a last resort) I think it will stand up as far as notability is concerned, and I'll check it for any possible improvements. If it gets listed for AfD, let me know, because there are too many for me to follow otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm! um kay. Tried a re-drafifying mv to Draft:Benjamin Park only to have a double-direct fixer, perhaps, bot automatically move it back again. If you could "toolkit" it to there for me -- (Say - back to here?: diff -- I'd really appreciate it--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't understand. I do think it is good enough to stay, even though you moved it irregularly. I will edit it further perhaps. I removed the book reviews he wrote --they're generally too minor to count. What we do need is reviews of his books. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hoo wee! Not for nothing, but now, with this this thenewyorker review), I think I'd agree w historian will bagley's sentiment (kindly expressed to ben's fb wall) that his very fresh 'ascent' is now "higher on the writer/historian peak than anyone else in Mormon Studies" (even richard bushman's?)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG, I have edited the article above based on your feedback. Let me know if there are any further improvements you think could be made.
Doogierev (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just FYI, you forgot to put this article onto Wikidata. The person had already had an article created on other wikis, such as hrwiki, skwiki and plwiki. Informing you here because I believe interwiki linking is important, and I want you to be more careful. Thanks. 37.47.200.14 (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never do anything on Wikidata. What I do try to do is add the article to the languages list, but this can also be done by the many excellent and careful people who fill in the technical gaps after an article is accepted. I try to concentrate on what I can personally do best, which is judge whether an article is likely to be deleted, and on what I am one of the vey few WP reviewers to do at all, which is give detailed and appropriate advice to all good faith editors.
so I want to express my appreciation to you , and all the others checking such things. I don't think your work is any the less important than mine, and it requires equal care and equal judgment --and equal devotion to the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 10:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG, Do you have any further edits which you think should be made on the article? The subject continues to be covered across the international media - BBC News, The Times, The Telegraph in the UK last week - and a big two page spread feature in Corriere della Sera this week.
Doogierev (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not primarily notability, but the rather promotional style in which he article is written. The use of quotes like "advertised as offering students “anytime, anywhere mentorship at the touch of a phone screen”" ; the name dropping -- if he received an honour it does not mater who gave it, and if he appeared on a platform, it is irrelevant who also appeared. Wha you need to do is cut back further on such material, and also to remove all references to he Mail -- this is no regarded as a reliable or even usable source in Wikipedia. There might be enough left. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG. First of all, thank you for your ongoing feedback on this draft article - it's been incredibly instructive. I've made the changes in line with your previous suggestions: including the removal of Daily Mail citations, removal of anything which could be construed as namedropping, and the removal of direct quotes from the subject and others. I hope the style of the article is now to your satisfaction and provides an unambiguously objective overview of the subject. Let me know if there's anything else I should be thinking about.
Doogierev (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doogierev, I've done what I could to help the article, by removing excess use of the name, the organisation's name, and repeated links . But I see you left in the material about the debating and undergraduate successes. I do not see why the public should be interested in them. What I do see, is that it is setting up an image of coming from a single mother family, who succeeds in school and then in university, as a first generation Oxbridge student thus providing the background for Seddon's authenticity in offering a program for other young people to replicate his achievement. This is the way good PR is written. Wikipedia does not publish PR. DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG. Courtesy ping to let you know that I've made some substantial improvements to my draft on Joe Seddon based on the feedback of yourself and others. It would be really useful to know if you think all the 'promotionalism' has now been successfully removed, and any further amendments which should be made to the article before it goes live. Stay safe, Doogierev.
Doogierev (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help with creating my first page. I've made the changes you mentioned in your note. I hope the edits are suitable, but feel free to alter if not. I admit to being very lost in these pages... I couldn't see how to properly reply to you following your note... this is the only way I could see ... hope ok.
I apologize for the poor quality of the initial translation of the article, I've made. I've simplified the language, made it more neutral and added sources. Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaheris fils de lot (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, followed your advice and added scientific and medical sources (found them here : https://www.bioserenity.com/en/publication/). I tried to stay as neutral as possible. If you still think that it reads like an advertisement or the sources are still not good enough than I'd rather kill the article altogether at this point and wait for the company to grow or other users to chip in. I didn't want to be major contributor and I was merely trying to translate an article from the French Wikipedia that I thought might be of interest.
Gaheris fils de lot (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've had reason to come and look at your user page a few times and always found it a pleasing experience, which helps. Anyway, just wanted to say that the section "My approach to ANI, AE, and ArbCom" has a couple of spelling mistakes. All the best.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:DGG: May I request your help to attend the issues posed by your Cleanup-PR tag to this article. I have removed the comment about the scientist´s publications being "highly cited" as in the original, I hope this helps. I would appreciate your further indications or actions to remove any "improper sources" as implied in the tag text. Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neuralia, I took a look. You are making a good start, but there's a little more to go. Remove every adjective, and rhetorical phrases like " the exploitation of which might one day serve to advance this quest" . Try to replace use of his name with "he" or "him" . Don't use italics for emphasis. You need a specific reference immediately after each quotation. For the section on research, try to express it with fewer specialized technical terms, and make sure every technical term is linked to the corresponding Wikipedia article. Then let me know, and I'll see if Ican do anything further. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG Although with unpardonable delay, I have now attended the issues you kindly indicated in the previous paragraph, which I am sure has considerably improved the article. Your revision of the changes and reconsideration of the {Cleanup-PR} tag will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.@DGG:
Speedy deletion of article on Barry's Bootcamp[edit]
Hi, you requested a speedy deletion of an article I wrote and it was deleted. I cannot get any feedback from editors here; they just tell me it reads like an ad. It's not an ad, though. I wasn't paid. It's a prominent company that didn't have a page, and I've been making edits to pages for years and wanted to start creating pages. Can you please tell me how it read like an ad and what I can do to fix it going forward? Thank you.
Djb2183 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Just for context, there are two other admins who thought so also.) The problem is a mixture of promotionalism and notability -- we don't have any good prebuilt form for this, but they tend to go together. I've looked at each of the references, and every one of them is either a mere notice, or a press release, even the one on abc news. They are mostly built of interviews with the founder, who is allowed to say pretty much what he wants to. The confirmation is that they all use the same quotes, and the same 2 photos. This can be a real problem even with what would be common-sense notable subjects in some industries, because unless they're really important, nothing else gets published. The most actually promotional parts of the draft are the name dropping, and the plans for expansion, repeated in the lede. You'll need to find some source that actually discusses the firm without quoting extensively from the founder, and use that as a basis. DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I really appreciate this. I'll find new references to form the basis of the article and then I'll re-submit. Super helpful. Many thanks. Djb2183 (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's still too much very minor material. And, please refer to him by his last name only, or use just "he", unless there's confusion with other members of the family. Also, if you'rre a member of the family, you have a conflict of interest. Say so on the draft talk page and on your user page. You don't have to specify justwhat the relationsip is, just that there's a conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@@@@@@@@
Thank you for the advise Ill be sure to make those changes. Can you please provide me with an example of where you think I put too many minor details? I cant seem to see any part that should be removed. Thank you for your help Fmanheim1 (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 09:40:13, 9 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Csengul[edit]
This message is regarding the Draft:Dita Přikrylová - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dita_P%C5%99ikrylov%C3%A1
I am trying to understand the notability requirements of Wikipedia - this is a person who has a page in Czech (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dita_P%C5%99ikrylov%C3%A1), and I was thinking she
is doing notable work to be covered in English Wikipedia as well.
Articles included were about her and were secondary sources evidencing her work and her awards.
Could you give a bit more insight into what sources are expected to consider a person notable?
Thanks.
Csengul, standards at the different WPs vary, and the standard at the english WP in particular has been increasing with time, partly in response to the increased amount of attempted promotionalism . By our current standards, the sources in the article are either announcements, or pinterviews where the subject says what they care to, which we now consider to not be truly independent. the awards would probably not be considered sufficiently significant here, especially the 30 under 30 which, in all its many variations, is a promotional gimmick. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dita Přikrylová. DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Questions about draft rejection Clodagh O'Shea[edit]
Hi!
I was wondering if you could provide some more details about why this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clodagh_O%27Shea was rejected. I agree that I should add a degree history and will do so, but I am confused about some of the other comments.
The rejection noted that my article was written in a "non-neutral" tone but the only full statement that I have is: "Clodagh C. O'Shea is a professor of molecular and cell biology and current Wicklow Chair at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences and a scholar at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute," which is a statement of fact. Everything else is lists of publications or awards.
In addition, I am confused as to why I need to provide her top 5 cited publications with the number of citations, when this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Rocca was recently approved and has only 3 publications listed without any indication of how often they're cited.
Lastly, the comments include "And any national level awards--not junior awards or awards from their own university." I realize that the awards listed might be perceived as "junior" but the Beckman award is national and comes with a substantial grant and is important enough that it even has its own Wikipedia article. The "distinguished investigator" award is pretty common among other Wikipedia articles for scientists and that particular one was awarded by another national institute with a Wikipedia entry. I've adjusted the citations so that they come from the awarding agency instead of the Salk Institute, in the hopes that maybe that will help.
I am not sure that it is fixable, because most of the references that do work are mere notices. . First step is to remove all adjectives of praise or quality. Second is to check the references--some do not work Third is to have someone who is fluent in English check your wording -- phrases like " proposed to the artists a concept on that oral intertwining that title of La trama bucata. " are not understandable English, though I can guess what you probably meant. . Since this is written in the style of a press release, 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 ) 16:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an Iranian professor and politician and famous man in Iran Hamaredha (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hamaredha, There were no readable source. Please try to find a source in English also--for someone in his position this shoul be easily possible. If not, available, translate the title of the publication and of the article, plus whatever it ays that is key to demonstrating notability . DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC) . DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. Thank you for taking the time to review my draft and for your feedback. I rewrote and removed some parts that read like an advertisement or does not use a neutral point of view. I also added more independent, reliable and secondary references or sources. Please check if these 2 reference can be considered as substantial coverage. They have an overview, description, survey and analysis/commentary from the writer.
Please check if the draft can be approved now.
Aurdivon (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aurdivon, promotionalism and borderline notability tend to go together. Just which of the references supporting your articles provides substantial coverage from a third-party independent reliable sources, not a press releases or mere announcement?
Hi DGG. Thank you for the feedback. I looked for references that meets that criteria and listed them below. Please let me know if these are okay.
Hi DGG. I'd like to follow up on the above. Aurdivon (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. I'd like to follow up on the above. Aurdivon (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. I hope you're doing well. Please let me know when you have checked the references above and if their okay. Aurdivon (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC) *******[reply]
Dear DGG,
if you could find the time, please, see my user talk page - I am slightly lost on where to post what... (and from which account: unfortunately I set up a second one, assuming writing for the engl. wikipedia would require that) - not even sure, whether you received the emails I sent you in december.(?) Anyways, thank you for your patience - I resubmitted the article today.
Cheers, Marinus von Eisenstein (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC) (aka Marinus Eisenstein)[reply]
I had stacked up a ton of drafts in my userspace. I had noticed a lot of times, I move them and later, I had to tag them for deletion. Some users can rename them without leaving a redirect. Can i be enabled to do so? Starzoner (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment on my submission. Staten Island women who ran. I don’t have any info on women who ran prior. Do you have suggestions on how to edit my article to cover bases? I thought it was kept factual by saying she was the first woman elected on Staten Island.
I've amended the page on Paul Andrews (Scientist) and I'd be grateful if it can be re-reviewed as soon as possible as he's been nominated for the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emesis-historian (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emesis-historian, according to our article Nobel Prize, "the nominees are not publicly named, nor are they told that they are being considered for the prize. All nomination records for a prize are sealed for 50 years from the awarding of the prize". So what is your evidence? Given your user name, and given that this is your only contribution, 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 his organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures.
The article claims his work is responsible for a major medical application--what is the evidence of this, aside from his own papers? And what is the evidence for the relative role of Andrews and Sanger in their work? DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:DGGI can assure you that I am not being paid to write about a fellow scientist, nor am I at Prof Andrews’ institution. I have written the article in a neutral way as required. I admire their work and feel it is not well known to the public despite its importance and it having touched many lives for the better.
The role of Sanger and Andrews in developments of agents to mitigate chemotherapy-nduced emesis is stated in peer-reviewed papers in top journals, that is, their contributions have been reviewed by peers and are accepted by the research community. The basic science work they contributed to understanding the efficacy of 5HT-3 and NK1 receptor antagonists led to the drugs Granisetron and Emend, that have been and still are prescribed worldwide. Their roles are discussed at length in the Wellcome Trust ‘Witnesses to Contemporary Medicine’ report as is referenced in the article.
I haven’t written other articles as I’m new to wiki page writing. I didn’t realise it was as difficult as it seems. That I know of his nomination is part of the usual leaks in the science world that surround the Nobel process, and have for decades, nothing new there. It is not mentioned in the article originally or in the amended version.
Reference
Daphne Christie; Tilli Tansey, eds. (2007) [https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/14884/1/14884.pdf "The Discovery, Use and Impact of Platinum Salts as Chemotherapy Agents for Cancer", Wellcome Witnesses to Contemporary Medicine, History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, ISBN 978-0-85484-112-7.
Emesis-historian (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if this came across as in any way insensitive. You had unintentionally triggered our sensitiveness to a major problem affecting Wikipedia , a problem for which you are not in any way responsible. With the increasing prominence of Wikipedia and, in particular, the increasing use of Wikipedia as a source for the first hit and information pages of Google, there has been an almost unmanageable increase in the attempted use of Wikipedia for promotionalism.In addition to the irresponsible (and illicit) paid editing rings, many university and other academic PR staff also try to insert promotional articles in Wikipedia , as do sometimes services acting on behalf of individual scientists or even the scientists themselves. (It's even more widespread in some other fields, but academic articles are what I work on most) Some of do it naively, not realising we are not a suitable medium for PR. Others continue to do this even after our requirements are made clear to them. Some declare their conflict of interest according to our rules, but nonetheless write articles that are indistinguishable from promotional web pages.
Your article had one particular feature of many such articles: the claim that a worker in basics or applied science has done something which will have multiple potential applications to human diseases. Such claims have their place--they are a staple of grant applications, and application for promotion. But they do not belong in an encyclopedia unless they are proven, not just potential; our requirements for these are at WP:MEDRS. This is not the exact same situation as the usual claim at MEDRS, but it's similar. The source you've just given will help, but it is not a peer-reviewed review article. If you know of any, by a third party, add them, or tell me here, and I'll adjust the wording.
And, frankly, your request said something usually associated with promotional writing: I need this approved right away because .... DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice DGG. I'll collate some peer-reviewed third party references to support the clinical impact and edit the article again. I totally agree the need to make sure wikipedia articles do not come across as PR. If my draft came across like that it was entirely unintentional. Emesis-historian (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these helpful editorial comments, DGG. I am carefully following all of your directions in this revision.
I have sought a more formal and neutral tone, mentioned books only once and removed from the lede, and delegated reviews to references. I am removing any indications of praise and cleanly separating artistic from academic pursuits.
There is no conflict of interest. I am a musicologist, so I know Jon McCollum’s work well and can confirm it is having an impact. I have never been his teacher, student, lover, family member or anything like that, and have never even been employed by the same institution, just a professional colleague with some shared interests. I am not in any way compensated – no quid pro quo - for writing this entry.
I hope some version of this article can be accepted since it seems worthwhile to have academic profiles on Wikipedia, and he is doing significant work.
Please understand that Wikipedia is used so extensively for promotional purposes, even by academics. This constitutes so much of a danger to the objectivity of the encyclopedia that it's necessary to ask such questions--but we normally accept any good faith assurance--I appreciate your details, but they're not necessary. And we will always primarily rely on people in the same field to contribute articles about what they know. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider whether the article can now be approved or if additional edits are necessary. I am not sure if the headings are correctly formatted. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luresblow (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted it, with some modifications: one can't claim "influences" unless some connection is demonstrated, or cited by a third party--we have had people saying they were influenced by everyone famous, from Aristotle to the present. You need to add the schools that gave the degrees, and the dates.,and, preferably , the title of the thesis and the thesis advisor. You should have specific reference to the chapters in the reference works. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 18:47:37, 18 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Luresblow[edit]
I have a policy of not arguing with a wiki reviewer but am so glad you pointed out that within reason a chemical article can not be too technical as that is the whole point! However, I checked with other similar articles and I admit I wrote one of them and heavily edited another. They are here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,6-Hexanediol_diacrylate
I don't think I have the access rights to change but these three articles should be consistent. TMPTA is shortened in the title but the other two are fully spelled out. I think that should be changed. GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have rewritten the article Draft:Dmitry Zimin that you have previously draftified. Could you please take a look at it? --colt_browning (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any kind of response will be appreciated. --colt_browning (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Colt browning, I made some further copyedits for conciseness, and accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I have been researching Dr Syra Madad and was intending to create a wiki page on her. However, I saw that a draft had already been created but then declined for lack of notability. I was therefore wondering if you could elaborate on why you think Dr Madad fails to meet the notability critiera? Having checked WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO, I believe Dr Madad is notable enough for inclusion based on the following criteria:
Criteria 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.)
Dr Madad has been frequently cited in the media with regards to her expertise in infectious disease, especially during the current coronavirus pandemic. She was also selected as an expert for the Netflix documentary 'Pandemic: How to Prevent an Outbreak'.
The subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
Based on the sources listed above (and others not included), I believe this constitutes significant coverage of the subject.
Unlike the previous editor, you have some experience here in writing articles, and you have good work to your credit (looking at them, there are also af ew problems, which I will mention on your talk page). I think you could reasonably try to develop the page and resubmit it. It needs a good deal of bio added, but sources are available.
the problem here is that giving news interviews on matters of current concern is not making a major impact, but pure routine. (there have been a few very exceptional occasions where the interviews themselves have been matters for substantial coverage elsewhere, but I don't think that's the case here. ) What usually qualifies under that provision is a very senior bureaucrat, or someone who would equally well be notable under other criteria--for example, an author who has written important popular science books, or a very influential journalist. There needs to be some strong actually independent evidence, not just customary hype about qualifications given by the publication--most of them are written by the person or their press agent. For example [9] -- notice the PR-style vagueness about exact dates and other details .
Normally, her position has head of a small very specialized unit in a city's health department would not be likely to be considered notable But this is not normal times, and there is likely to be public interest in the qualification and background of people giving information on contagious disease. The problem here will be NOT NEWS. Obviously we're covering the pandemic in great detail, and our crowdsourcing can be more effective than ordinary reporting at keeping up to date on major events. But this may be considered peripheral.
Try it and let me know, & I will probably accept it. The guideline for passing AfC is whether it would pass AfD in mainspace; usually I can tell from experience, but this one is hard to predict. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was publishing a page ZunRoof for my friend but it got marked for articles for deletion. Can you please help me approve it. Is there any way I can get help to get it approved. Would compensation for the article work?
Please let me know what can I do to get it approved.
You apparently do not understand what the purpose of Wikipedia is. It is not for advertising, or publishing pages about one's friend's enterprises. The people who write here work as volunteers, including the administrators such as myself. One of the most foolish things you could do here is exactly what you have just done, offered to pay an administrator here for help in keeping an article. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I joined Wikipedia recently and I have gone through some of the most important Wikipedia guidelines like GNG, NPOV and NCORP. I have edited a few articles to familiarize myself and I wrote about a company (link), I no longer work for (but still declared a COI). I came to know that a previous attempt was taken down through AfD and you were a participant in that talk. FYI, I strongly emphasize on NPOV so I have not promoted the company. Could you please help me review its new AfC draft and possibly suggest any improvements. It would help me become a better editor in the days to come! Thanks in advance!
Make sure your references go somewhere--look at reference 6. Remember we need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. The ref in The millennials, for example, is a mere mention; the others seem like disguised press releases And, since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in exactly the format of a press release, 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 ) 18:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG, I expanded it a bit and made it more respectable. What do you think about it ? I think it's quite close to wikipedia level. Yug(talk) 17:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yug, you still need to remove some adjectives of praise or importance, check the section headings, reconsider if the article about her should be a guide to her routine statements about COVID, and try to find a better source for what she has accomplished tha her own statements in an interview DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, looking to talk about which part of the article makes you believe Draft:Renowned LA is a press release? I kept it short for this reason (it's easier to get feedback).
The first sentence and a half is basic overview and history
The latter part of the second sentence is about who wears it to establish WP:SIGCOV
The final sentence is about who I've found this company has worked with and who covers subject, again for WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV guidelines
I'm thinking the later part of the second sentence where the article states celebrities who wear the brand could be redundant for WP:SIGCOV since its established in the following sentence.
I'm looking to create a few articles to keep me entertained during the Covid-19 pandemic and could use some feedback so every article I make over the next week or two doeesn't get deleted. I plan to use similar format when creating my stubs (overview and history then basic notability references). Pilot333 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot333, The draft's content is almost entirely name-dropping: the personal names of various celebrities who have worn their clothing, and the name of companies they work with . However, one of the refs is WWD; it's not accessible to non-subscribers, but if the coverage therew as substantial rather than a mere notice, it might be possible to write an acceptable article. In trying to write something here, the best way is to make sure you have three very good references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements before you start writing. The better the sources, the more confident you can be that your efforts will be successful. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I could use some advice or input on a situation, not sure if I'm overreacting, under reacting, or acting appropriately, as the situation is sort of unique. This started when I placed a notability maintenance template as part of NPP and was working with the page creator here to explain the concerns. Apparently, I did not respond to his latest comment quick enough and came back to see that some article I created seven years ago had been stripped and gutted, by the user's own admittance as an act of retribution, further comments here. I reverted the edits he made, as I saw it as a WP:WITCHHUNT and an effort to be destructive instead of constructive and explained such and invited the user to comment on his concerns on the talk page. When the user started in with more passive-aggressive statements, judgments on my contributions, and empty apologies, I chose to try to WP:DISENGAGE and ask the user to stop what I perceived as harassing and continuing comments. I reverted one last time the users edits stating I would need time to review what is wrong with the article and their actions couldn't be viewed as constructive. From that the user has now set another passive aggressive deadline on me in their most recent comment on the Lucky Lou's talk page..
I'll be the first to admit, the Lucky Lou's article is problematic and in need of help and possibly not even notable. I had actually completely forgotten about this article that was created in my Wiki infancy. I would like to improve the article, but I feel that any edits I make would be met with interference and more unwanted interactions with this user. I also am concerned whether or not this user is performing the same acts of retribution against other reviewers/editors who are critical of their work. I could have handled the situation better by probably not reverting their edits and just coming back after a few days. I'm likely just going to wait for the user to move on in a continuing effort to WP:DISENGAGE as much as possible. Just wondering if I have some sort of responsibility in letting a third party know about this, to see if this user has done such actions in the past, since from what I understand retribution and unconstructive edits like this are very much against quite a few policies and I wouldn't want to see other reviewers/patrollers discouraged or attacked. Sorry to bring a bit of drama to your door, but I know you will give a fair assessment of the situation, including the things I could have done differently. If you want me to take the whole thing elsewhere, that's fine too. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I shall take a look.
But to notify me about something like this, I think it's better just to ask me to look at the history of the article and its talk page, and then I will be able to examine whatever may have been going on with any preconceptions. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
having taken a look, the only way to handle situations like this is to not get bothered by them. It isn't easy -- I get a few misguided reverts a year; it is impossible to actually win an argument about them, but I remember every one of them & keep trying to imagine some way to go back & do that. No matter how dispassionate I pretend to be, I do like to win arguments--fortunately. this place has the virtue that there's always so many other issues. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea if Roper-Curzon family is a notable topic? As per off-wiki evidence, it was created for payment and there is a possible case of sockpuppetry as well. GSS💬 02:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
there is no such family. For the actual history see the most recent accurate version of the article on Baron Teynham. [10]. The later versions of that article are contaminated by the same imaginative genealogy. . DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it must be nominated for deletion. I have reverted the most recent edits at Baron Teynham to non-coi version and dropped you an email. This looks like the same sockfarm. GSS💬 06:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprized how this page was moved to main by user Passengerpigeon just within four minutes of its creation. Most of the sources have no mention of the family and/or aren't reliable so, can you please take a look? GSS💬 16:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was planning to check this aspect also. But it is very easy for a reviewer to make a mistake like this when working in unfamiliar fields. There's also a factor of special knowledge: as a librarian I know the inaccuracy of the usual sources for UK genealogy, & I've kept track of previous discussions here in that area. I therefore look closely at any entry on a historic English family that isn't from a known reliable editor. Additionally, many reviewers (including me) are making an attempt to immediately accept anything that seems to them clearly worthy. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How different is the current article from the House of Roper-Curzon article which was AfD deleted a couple of months ago? It looks like it has the exact same notability/sourcing/OR issues that were brought up in the discussion. --bonadeacontributionstalk 10:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Curb Safe Charmer. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Hall's Safe & Lock Co., and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Draft: R Dub! you rejected the article, and I'm really confused as to why. There are 2 main reasons given for the rejection: lack of neutral / professional tone and lack of independent published sources. Could you tell me what's lacking in the first one? The 2nd one I'm just really confused by, because there are tons and tons of independent sources cited, including newspapers from various locations. Another proofreader previously asked if this person really is notable and deserves an article, so I was told to add awards proving notoriety (which I did) and to cite articles proving notoriety (which I mentioned on that proofreader's talk page and added as a note on the draft article). Could you clue me in? I'm just baffled at this point, because the article follows an exact format that I copied from other radio DJs who have articles, so if theirs are good enough, and this article follows the exact same style and format, I don't get why those are published and this one isn't. Glad for any pointers. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithryanallen (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. But before we go into details, since this is your only contribution, 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 ) 15:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for pay, I don't work with this person or anything like that. Just personal interest. I've edited articles in the past but never started one on wikipedia. I've done much more on wikitravel than on wikipedia itself.Smithryanallen (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apr 23 - any additional thoughts? I highlighted 'wiki 3' and notoriety as requested by a previous reviewer so looking for guidance on how to move forward. Thanks. Smithryanallen (talk)
Draft: Rocco Lupoi
You claimed a personal opinion that the article was: "This is a promotional press release, not an encyclopedia article." Which is not based on any more explanation. This appears to be a poor justification, as the article entirely relies on external primary and secondary sources that are suitable to the "reliability" policy of wikipedia i.e. Reputable Newspapers and Media; and Academic Research Papers. Secondly on the lack of neutrality in the tone of some phrases, as it was outlined back in december by Taewangkorea, this has been corrected and rectified, to match the neutral tone standard of wikipedia. As such there is no evidence of "promotion" apart from your personal, perhaps biased judgement. I would appreciate the opinion of another Wikipedia Editor. Comment added by JackK19 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means that subject needs notability. Researchers require a significant discovery of some sort to warrant an article of their own. What makes this scholar comparable to the achievements of another like Jordan Peterson? Pilot333 (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My advice:
The role of AfC is not to judge articles, but to predict whether the community is likely to accept an article at AfD.
there are two possible standards for this article, WP:PROF, and WP:GNG. WP:PROF is not part of WP:GNG, but a separate guideline, and the usual way of meeting it is to show an impact on the profession through the evidence of highly cited peer-reviewed articles or books from major academic presses--there are a few auxiliary guideline such as major prizes which more ofr less amount to the same thing. We judge the amount of citations according to the field, but this is a matter of judgment for each individual AfD; the one definitely clear level is in the biomedical sciences where at least one or preferably two papers with over 100 citations each is expected. Most other fields have a lower density of publication and thus a lower level, butt here's no specific figure. It is not explicitly a comparison with others, though that is a factor which can help in thinking about the necessary level. There are many ways of doing influential work, and "significant discovery" is often too specific a term. AfD is too erratic for direct comparisons with other articles. Having one inappropriate articles does not mean we should have another, while having unwisely rejected a suitable article does not imply we should reject another. But the comparison here is not relevant, because Jordan Peterson is noto only in a completely different field, but even more important, he is not only notable, but extremely notable, and I might even say famous. People do not have to be at that level to warrant an article.
Promotionalism is a separate factor. Any one reason for WP:NOT is reason for exclusion, and NOT ADVOCACY is at least as important as NOT INDISCRIMINATE.
Looking at this specific draft: I made an error is judging it unlikely to meet notability. First, it should have been judged by WP:PROF, the highest citation figures are 79, 79, 63, 61. Materials science is a field without an established consensus at afd, but this is significant enough to make it quite possible that it would be considered to meet WP:PROF. So that part is OK, & I just re-reviewed to remove that tag.
The question then is promotionalism. I judged it promotional on the basis of the information about grants. The size of the grant is a matter of great concern to universities and consequently to researchers, for it is a very important factor is whether they will keep a researcher. It is not of much value to the reader of an encyclopedia , and material of interest primarily to the subject or his bosses is considered promotional here. In particular to be one of a number of researcher members of a department listed in a grant to the department is irrelevant--such a grant lists everyone possible to make a case for the overall merit of the unit.
Patents are considered irrelevant unless exploited to a notable extent. Universities patent everything possible in the hope of a windfall. If judged as an inventor of a particular patented process, we'd first have to judge the process notable. Therefore the mention of possible commercial applications is also usually promotional . It can be mentioned, but not emphasized.
The article is fixable. The intent of using the tag is that the article get fixed. So, JackK19, fix it and resubmit. List those highly cited papers, don't bother about the grants. Let me know, & I will accept it. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can G11 be used here since it just survived an AfD? Sulfurboy (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right thatI should let someone else deal with it. I removed the G11. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a nightmare of a draft. However, with how many people are monitoring it and the page creator's obvious unwillingness to improve it, there's zero chance it goes anywhere anyways. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David, I'll try to gather the source and write other relevant articles that I know! Will work for the next draft articles in my free time from school! Appreciate it! Antony Willianson (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I had been trying to contact the other person who flagged this page but got no response, so it's been a somewhat disappointing experience in the community so far. But I do appreciate you taking the time out to explain the situation. Since I am able to see pages for much smaller (and lesser known) companies in India, I'm guessing the page removal was more to do with the content style than the brand's notability. Would you mind assisting me with what is required for an acceptable submission? Looking forward to learn and iterate! Ymed07 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David Goodman! My draft article: Robam Kenorei was declined earlier! These few days I have edited and added some information to the draft article. The reference for this dance is very rare, I could find only a few on internet! I did my best seeking help from others as well! This dance was almost vanished during the Cambodian civil war. I believed creating the article about this dance will allow others who have access to its sources to edit it! I need somebody to improve it as well but I dont know where we can get help for this draft article!
This draft article will be a new article with the title "Robam" of the Royal Ballet of Cambodia like other articles such as Robam Tep Apsara (now Apsara Dance), Robam Sovann Maccha, Robam Moni Mekhala,...
Please check my edition to the draft article and inform me whether it is ready for approval! I need other editors to improve it as well! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony Willianson (talk • contribs) 15:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Antony Willianson. you are correct that having it in mainspace will make it more visible to others who might want to work on it, so I accepted it. And I certainly urge you to continue on related topics. You might want to ask the Dance wikiproject for help with sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand why the article was denied. Please help![edit]
Hi DGG,
I saw your note about the Beyond Better Foods article, and am confused. What was on it that made it seem promotional?
Most of the articles are direct references to the existence of the company and the product, with the primary article, being a full page feature in the New York Times, goes into detailed length about the formation of the company.
The article that you referred to, the USA Today article, was listed (and ultimately summarized in a non-promotional way) with 9 other articles, merely to give an example that the products of this company have covered extensively in major outlets with extensive reach over a long period of time, which they indeed have. Would it help to remove the sentence though (although it feels relevant to establish the impact that the products that beyond better foods have had in the market)?
If you could help provide this clarification, that would be great and allow me to correct this. It seems that a major company such as this, that is available around the country and has multiple products, should be here. I see other similar companies, like Halo Top Creamery (there's a full list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ice_cream_brands) all have pages.
Also I might add that this page also lists major legal controversy (which I thought was also relevant) to illustrate neutrality as well.
Thanks again for your help - these comments are in earnest and looking to find a way to improve this. Came across this while reading Lisa Lillien's page and thought there should be a connection.
The purpose of AfC is not to give the reviewer's personal judgment on articles. Rather, it's a place where the reviewer uses their experience of what happens at WP:AFD deletion discussions in WP to predict whether an article has a decent chance of passing an AfD. In the end, the community makes the decision.
It is quite possible that not all the ones listed there ought to have articles; 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 current standards for companies and their products, WP:NCORP, is much more rigorous than when I started here 12 years ago. It is designed to limit the coverage to those firms for which people would expect to find an encyclopedia article, because they have been the subject of substantial independent discussion in reliable source, discussion that is not based on press releases or interviews where the founder says whatever they please--even if such interviews are published in otherwise trustworthy news sources--even the best newspapers such as the New York Times has been known to do so, and even good journalists sometimes write them. The article there seems to be of that sort. The Times is respectable, and the author a skilled professional, and therefore the article actually and honestly explains at the top that it was inspired by one of the investors in the company. And that's pretty much what is expected in its "Small Business section". It's reasonable for a newspaper, but not an encyclopedia.
But in any case we need more than a single good reference, which is one of the ways we guard against this sort of PR. Some of the other reverences are not substantially about the company, but about the product category-- Redbook (2 sentences out of 5 paragraphs, Healthline, Womens Health, Today.com . One is just a collection of blurbs about assorted interesting products: refinery29, One is an openly declared press releases: NOSH. Two are PR disguised as pseudo-articles: delish.com, popsugar. And one is about a competitor: GQ.
The negative information is a feature we've been seeing more frequently: when a promotional editor does it, it's an attempt to convince the reader that the articles is neutral. And, of course, "All publicity is good publicity"
I don't think you're a promotional editor; rather, a promotional style is so common in WP, and in the real world, that it's hard to avoid. And I do not think the article hopeless; I declined it; I didn't reject it. (At AfC, "reject " is used when a article is hopelessly inappropriate, and the message that would be posted would warn the editor not to resubmit.) I think you can strengthen the article by omitting the weaker references. And then another reviewer will judge. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I"m really trying here to get this article up to snuff. What do I need to do? I tried providing a number of articles that list dietitians and certified individuals from NUMEROUS outlets, providing plaudits and listings for this company and its products. What am I missing here? Now I'm being told it reads like a press release. I feel like every time I'm moving forward its actually two steps back.
I feel like this is hopeless and yet so clearly should be something that should be here. Is there someone that can just go through and edit it as it needs, or give some kind of guidance? I'm unable to find articles that read well that I can model for a similar product or company.
Dear DDG. I trust that you are keeping safe in these unprecedented times. Thank you for your comments on the draft ROADEX project page. I have tried to take them on board and simplified the draft with less jargon and in-house references. I would welcome your thoughts on where I have got.Ronmun (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Ronmuni. I revised it further, and accepted it.. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DGG. I had a declaration on my Ronmun account giving the background to the page and my involvement. I have updated it to make it current and have copied it here also. Hopefully it will be sufficient for COI.
"This account has been created primarily to document the history of the EU Northern Periphery ROADEX project and its successor ROADEX NETWORK collaboration. I am retired civil engineer and was actively involved with the ROADEX project since its inception in 1998. I held various roles ranging from steering committee member for the pilot ROADEX project, steering committee chairman for ROADEX II and project manager for ROADEX III & IV. I am currently an ad hoc adviser to the consultant ROADEX NETWORK secretariat on historical issues. I realise that there are guidelines on editing pages where there could be an apparent conflict of interest and will try to keep my text to statements of fact only, supporting by references and citations where possible. It is my intention to follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines and I will welcome any help or contributions to ensure that the ROADEX Project page remains within these guidelines".Ronmun (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that declaration will do very well. If you want to add more, add about their accomplishments, not their plans, and use 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am confused with your deletion request as you told that the article is promotional but is it because in the article social blade is used? Is the reason or something else? Kashish pall (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@@@@@[reply]
Hello DGG, thank you for your insight and suggestions on the Draft:Cel-Sci Corporation. I tried to fixed as per your suggestions and your valuable comment and review is required. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey Richard (talk • contribs) 09:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mickey Richard, I accepted it, but that just means I think it will pass a challenge at AfD, not that I guarantee it. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I completely understand. Mickey Richard (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG, I really appreciate your page where you explain your view of the universe. A great read. If you could help me restore all the hard work I did and help me get on a path to do it properly, I would be most grateful. I think it would also help a great many people. Jerrold's death is a big loss to many as I anticipated it would be.
I will leave the explanation for my appeal that I wrote for the speedy deletion. Please note that after I wrote that I added some citations from the New York Times (which I planned to do all along) to bolster my case. But alas, the initial article was gone when I returned a few hours later. If you could please help me get it back, I think it would be just.
If I have to start it somewhere else, like my sandbox, subject to approval, I will do so. But I'd love to retrieve my work thus far.
Here was my appeal:
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... this person died 4/4/2020 from the Covid-19 virus. He is the author of 30 books, both fiction and non-fiction and has been an editor at The New York Times. He is a member of the Authors Guild, PEN American Center, and Poets & Writers, is listed in Contemporary Authors and the Directory of American Poets & Fiction Writers.
I was surprised to find there was no Wikipedia page on him so I created one. I am sure other writers and publishers will be interested in his passing and will be willing to help with this page if more needs to be added to it. At the present time I was just trying to create a factual page about a genuine important person with a writing career that spans over 40 years. Please let me know what I can do to improve this article. I was not trying to be overly promotional, just to state his importance as a public figure. His book HOW TO GET OUT OF DEBT, STAY OUT OF DEBT & LIVE PROSPEROUSLY has helped literally tens of thousands of people all over the world and is an important text in the 12 step worlds of Debtors Anonymous and Underearners Anonymous. Furthermore, the current economic crisis is sure to being more people to these 12 step fellowships for help.
I would be happy to do more research and/or make any changes or eliminate any sentences or paragraphs or citations that appear to be promotional that you deem necessary to being this article up to your standards. I was just trying to make a first pass at creating a summary of this man's importance to the world. Like I said, I was very surprised that he was not already listed in Wikipedia. Thank you for seriously considering this. I am sure many people will be looking for this article in the days to come as news of his death becomes more well known.
I realize now perhaps I should have put it in my sandbox and begun it that way. Whatever could happen to set things right, I am willing to do it to get this article up. Jerrold Mundis helped thousands of people, died Saturday of the Covid-19 virus and I would put him in the category of a professor that you cited in your DGG page. I loved what you wrote there and though he was not a professor, he had a 40 year career as a published writer and deserves to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iochone (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But to make a viable non-promotional article, you will need to removet like "Mundis first studied debt management following the navigation of a tough spot of his own financially. Working as a freelance writer his whole life meant not having a fixed income. Needing to borrow if he didn’t manage his money properly, he had debts around $80,000. Unable to escape this cycle, he discovered there were no resources available which inspired him to write his book." or "has helped thousands of people getting out debt and made him a "superstar of getting out of debt and debt management.", and also eliminate all adjectives of praise or quality. Additionally, smashword, goodreads, , and wealthclinic are not acceptable sources: list the books --all the books, but combining multiple editions--according to their entries in Worldcat.,not amazon, because Amazon includes promotional material with their entries. Boca Raton News and other local newspapers are not really great sources--try to stick to the NYTimes and sources of similar quality.
And be aware that Wikipedia uses notable as a term of art to mean only, "appropriate for an article in Wikipedia according to its guidelines" , which has no necessary connection with the general meaning of " importance to the world" ., or whether someone "deserves" to be in Wikipedia
Finally, since the contribution was written in exactly the format of a press release, 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 ) 19:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS I am not a connected contributor, not writing this for pay and not a staff member of any organization connected to Mr. Mundis or his publishers. Thanks.
Thank you for your valuable inputs. Will definitely make the mentioned improvements in the article to make it neutral along with 3 independent sources for reference. Thanks again. Regards, Tarukh Kaul
photo is a family photo and i have permission from radford to use it freely.
thanks so much for any feedback. i could submit next week if it looks ok.
josephJosephgalasso (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
even if you have permission, you need to follow the formal procedures at WP:DCM. The copyright permission must be made by the copyright owner, and it must be for CC-BY, which permits use not just in WP, but use anywhere by anyone for any purpose, even commercial. And we normally list doctoral students only if they are notable themselves. We usually don't mention editorial board membership, only editor-in chief. Otherwise it seems OK. DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, not sure how to get the Gytrash wikipedia page into the main, but have added a heap of links and been asked by alot of ppl why its still in review? Huge newsworthy win today and still nothing? Im still a wikipedia novice, but still seems very newsworthy with longevity. Pjninnis (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am new to this and just trying to create an objective article for Joe Lamp'l. My article was deleted for being too promotional. Can you help me understand how I could have better stated facts about this person's career with links to what exists on the internet without it appearing too promotional? Also, if I want to give this another try, should I start from scratch or is there a way to edit the article I wrote? Thanks! Aprentice525 (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@@@@@@@@@[reply]
Hi, I was recently rejected the article for Heal(2017 documentary film) and I was wondering what sections were deemed as advertisement. I included biographical data of the individuals of the film and the purpose for their appearance in the film, overall summary of the film, background on mind-body medicine, and the few accolades it has received. As for the lack of notability reason, I believe the film is sufficient for its own article as it is widely available through Netflix. Overall, I believe my tone was neutral and so any detailed feedback would be appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaMenendez (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this is part of an educational project, so it was not intended to be promotional ; unfortunately are so many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that are promotional , that it can seem natural to write in that manner. Looking more closely, promotionalism is not the main problem. There are the following problems with the article:
The promotional element was the inclusion of the promotional information about the participants in the biographies. Biographies of this sort of the people in the film are not normally part of a Wikipedia article. They are , however, part of press releases. It would have been sufficient to link to the articles on the people who had them, and identify the others in a few words within the text.
Being available on Netflix is irrelevant. Notability of films depends upon references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements; we sometimes do use major awards as a convenient shorthand, and also some of the other factors in WP:NFILM
There are no third party sources about the film. Ref 1 is the film itself, 2 is the film's web page, 3 & 4 are about mind-body medicine in general. the others are about the individuals who appear in the film. The only one of them that seems to mention the film is https://robwergin.com/heal-documentary-media/ IMDB, as you know, does not count as a Reliable source to show notable ,as it includes everything it can get information on.
Did your course instructor suggest this film for an article? DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
U|CaMenendez}}, go ahead as you plan-those reviews are critical, especially Hollywood Reporter, if the review there was substantial. It is one of the best sources in the industry DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just made the necessary edits to the article as you suggested. I do agree that it seems to be a stronger and well-balanced article now after your suggestions, so thank you for that. Please consider the article to be published and once again, thank you for your time in helping me with this. CaMenendez
CaMenendez. There's still the problem that thedetails of the peoples illnesses are minor plot details, and the reports of them do not meet the standards for MEDRS. The list of individuals duplicates about half of this, and does not describe them in NPOV language. For example, there is no such thing as a chiropractic physician; a chiropractor is not a physician. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that the article creator had approached you before he agreed to improve the draft, but now the promotional content has been restored and the draft is as bad as it was before I deleted it in the first place. Deb (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are well! I've seen that you edited the Draft: Freudenberg Performance Materials. I wonder if you have any recommendation on whether the article should be moved to mainspace or not. If you think it should be moved, I am happy to update the financials real quick. Thank you very much in advance for your feedback. Best, Conandcon (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best course for the present would be to incorporate it into the main article or the parent firm, and do similarly with the other divisions of the company. The deWP to a considerable degree seems to accept the notability of major companies based upon common sense as well as references ,and accepts that the majority of the references wiill come from the company itself. TheEnglish WP, because of the degree to which it is underattack by promotional editiors, tends to rely moreuponstrict conformity with WP:NCORP. Personally, I think that for historic firms, the German way is better, but it is difficult to make that argument here. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sulfurboy and DGG for your feedback. Maybe two remarks: The current German version of the article uses a mix of literature, news (trade and daily press) as well as company sources such as the annual report. We had chosen other sources for the enWP as the sources are all in German and it would have been hard for independent users to check content and sources. Regarding the deWP way of handling companies: The German WP has a clear and communicated notability criteria. When it comes to companies this means that the company needs to have at least 1000 FTEs or more than 100m revenue or being listed at a regular stock exchange or have 20 sites according to article 5 OECD-MA DBA or it has to "have a dominant position or innovative leaderhsip in a relevant product group or service (independent source required)" or it had fulfilled one criteria at some point in the past. As a consultant - obviously - I believe this is a pretty straight forward way to handle this - even though the criteria regarding market position leaves space for interpretation. Regarding sources the German community seems to accept trade press and (some) company sources more likely than enWP. However, you generaly need to have independent, reliable sources to back it up. Company sources tend to be accepted when it comes to facts (e.g. employee numbers, revenue etc.).
(talk page stalker)Conandcon, Just so it's clear (as some of your comments seem to be misdirected) the German wiki notability standard has zero bearing on whether or not this company would be considered notable on enWiki. We are two separate projects. Our concern also with this article is how it is sourced. The vast majority of the sources are either press releases, unreliable blogs with zero editorial oversight, and/or niche trade magazines which are often subject to both of the aforementioned concerns. We need to see sourcing from reliable, secondary sources.
...
:I should mention that I have tried for 12 years at enWP to get the acceptance of notability based on rational criteria relevant to the importanceof the subject to the user of an encyclopedia , rather than details of sourcing. The consensus has almsot always been against me. except in some special areas. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG,
I've edited the page again for neutrality, added biographical details, and have added a section on clinical use of the receptor antagonists that is supported by referenced works independent of Andrews.
Many thanks for reviewing it again.
Best wishes Emesis-historian (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG! I'm trying hard to create my articles and started this page as a stub, can't we start out as a stub and wait for the item to become more notable? -Keiichi88 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
first question:hav you any conflict of interest with this company, as defined in WP:Conflict of Interest? If it is in any direct or indirect sense a paid conflict of interest, see also WP:PAID for the necessary declarations. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no conflict of interest, however, I do intend on continue writing listed companies, I'm just stressed out why it's not "notable". -Keiichi88 (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keiichi88Notability for a company requires meeting WP:NCORP, several references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements . The only such ref is the money.dj, which I expected to find a mere database listing, like the ones from Bloomberg and Yahoo, or a promotional interview with the founder, as in most business "news: publications, but (judging by what seems to be a very effective Google translation) is a full detailed analysis, based on data, not just promotional statements from the company. . (judging by what seems to be the very competent Google translation) You need to find some way to include some translated quotes from it, and ideally find one more source. But for now just add some information about market share, and resubmit, and let me know on my talk page.
In general, please realize that 90% at least of articles we get submitted on new or small companies are essentially promotional, and most of them written by undeclared paid editors. We are therefore somewhat skeptical. The way to write of companies is to try to pick the longest established with the largest market share, and to look for good references before you start writing. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Will continue to work on it, had some time to think things through since getting rejected, but I'm determined to contribute and will follow your suggestions. Keiichi88 (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I have made the edits you previously suggested to the article including reviews for the film to address the notability and third-party issues. Please consider accepting this draft and thank you for your time and effort in helping me with this project. CaMenendez' ( talk )
you're getting there. But consider such phrases as "He has visited over 33 countries to conduct speeches about a variety of topics" this is first of all vague and meaningless,, and second sound lie it was taken from the film's publicity or introduction. Easiest way to go would be not to have numbered sections on each person, just short paragraphs. irt decreases the overemphasis of the names, and makes it sound less promotional . DGG ( talk ) 07:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I have made the necessary edits to make the article as neutral as possible. Thank you. CaMenendez' 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi David. Thank you for taking your time to review my edit. I do see why somebody might consider the article to be non-notable enough, I guess that is subjective. The reason for writing here is to check whether you declined the page because you suspected it to be spam / written with commercial or such intentions. As I understand you deal with such spam regularly. I just want to state that my submission was not intended as spam or with commercial intentions. This is my first WP article and this took me quite some time to write and collect the references based on the feedback of Liance. I do think the quality of WP comes first, but just want to make sure it was not rejected because of some misunderstanding of the intentions for posting. The reason for posting was because it took me quite some time to figure out why it was so difficult to find a version of an VCE file that would open with an older version of the VCE Exam Simulator. While this product seems the only actually used product in this market of exam simulators it is hard to find independent information on the subject. I looked on WP because I hoped to find more on it here. Since nothing was here I hoped to facilitate by publishing the little that I do have reliable / independent information of. This might make it easier for others to add to in the future. Please let me know if this might change your POV on the submission and if there is anything else I can do to preserve this information. Paulvl (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
== Question on citations ==
Hey DGG,
First of all, thanks for reviewing my article that was submitted for creation! It is reassuring to know others take the time to ensure that shared knowledge is of good quality.
Now, as for my question I'd like to say that I am fairly new to writing Wikipedia articles. In fact, the draft about Text World Theory is my first serious article that I would love to see published. The theory itself is of course not my original research. I just read the book for a University class, saw that it had no Wikipedia page and wanted to share it for others to see.
You commented that it seemed notable, but that it needed additional references to see where the statements came from exactly. Since I am new to this and I cannot really claim that I am a complete expert on the topic myself, I heavily relied on the book that introduced the theory for students like me, plus additional sources that work with the same concepts or use the theory in a different context. Consequently, I could reference nearly every sentence to a certain passage in one of the books that I used. However, it seems to me that that would both be unnecessary as it is clear that the article is based on these books or peer-reviewed articles, as well as that it would make the entire article less enjoyable to read with this immense amount of little blue numbers.
So my question is, when can it be said that the amount of references suffices? The guidelines that I have seen on this aren't clear enough for me, so I turn to an experienced editor for help.
Thanks in advance! I will continue to work on it, but I would love to hear your tips.
Owndifiction (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Owndifiction[reply]
there are several different complementary answers.
the amount of references suffices when nobody challenges them. this can depend on how controversial the article is, how much attention it gets, or just someone being difficult.
. It varies by subject: for biographies of living people, we usually do reference every substantial individual fact,--which is our own rule; for medical articles we usually reference every sentence--which is the custom in the professional literature; for articles on history, we usually give only fairly general references, though professional writing in this field usually references every individual fact, resulting in books composed about 2/3 of references, and the other humanities seem to be moving in the same direction--but normally we do not do this here, though a few Wikipedia articles written by academics in the field are written somewhat in that manner
. It depends somewhat on the likely familiarity of the reader with the subject, and that's the problem here.
. The way to go is to cite one or two standard works for most parts--you can cite them repeatedly: If in the visual editor, you cite one, and then simply copy the reference number. For specific points, then cite additional references. It's not the number of references, but their strength that matters. So for books, always give the publisher; for articles, always the journals; for web sites, avoid unless there's nothing better. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I am reaching out incorrectly or if this is not a matter for the talk page, as I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia. I am the person who proposed deleting the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewbaker_v._Regents page. Thank you for your response to my proposed deletion. I did find a third party source on the case, a book titled The Law of Higher Education, sixth edition, student version, and cites the case for the proposition that an administrative school disciplinary matter held after a criminal prosecution for the same conduct does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Does this make the case notable with respect to Wikipedia? I would volunteer to try re-writing the page to focus on its legal notability in order to remove the strange interpretation that the original author of the page, who was the plaintiff in the case, included in the article. However, I am a lawyer who represents a party who the plaintiff of this case is suing in another, unrelated matter. I discovered this article while researching the plaintiff and assumed that Wikipedia would not want off-base legal interpretations in articles written by the losing plaintiff. I believe it would be just as improper for me to write about the case given my adversarial posture to the plaintiff as it was for the original plaintiff to use Wikipedia as a place to vent about having lost the case. I would certainly try to be neutral, but the article would be better written by an expert in law (probably a lawyer or paralegal) who is not connected to the case or the parties involved in it in any way.
I am not sure how to propose that the article be rewritten, so I am leaving this note on your talk page in case you take an interest and are able to take steps to have the article be rewritten.
Dear 207.45.84.127, I appreciate your realistic and objective view on this. The information should be added, you should not be the one to do it, and I am no expert. I'm going to mention this to a wiki-friend of mine who, unlike me, is an attorney and has helped in similar situations; I'm sure he will deal with it competently. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NEEDS CHECK
Help regarding a 'contested deletion' response in WP:CSD case[edit]
Hi, I require help in a 'contested deletion' response for Draft talk:OnePageCRM. I took the WP:CSD action on basis of WP:G11 after being declined for same reasons earlier. The author has contested the WP:CSD. Do I need to do anything or the deleting administrator will take the decision? Please help. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You rejected Draft:Renowned_LA. Does that mean it cannot be modified to fit guidelines? Will it be reconsidered with the new edits? WP:TEA was unsure. Pilot333 (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I use it, it means you are strongly discouraged from trying to write an article until you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Celebrity endorsements are not sufficient. substantial articles about their products are. it's the next step up from declined. The stronger further step is for the draft to be deleted as hopelessly promotional , which means you have to be very sure indeed before trying to recreate it, because if its still not good, we go to the third step, which is to delete and protect it against recreation, which means you need to first convince an administrator there's enough; the very strongest step is to delete the draft, protect , and block the editor as promotional-only, which means you have to convince the blocking admin that you intend to write acceptable articles.
But since this might be possible if you looked carefully, and since WWD is a very good source, but one that I cannot access, I'm changing it to Declined. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG - I have changed the WWD links to their archived versions, which are indeed publicly available for your viewing pleasure. I have also removed the bulk of the celebrity endorsements except the one collaboration with Chris Brown, since I believe a magazine cover is probably significant. I believe my original article was too aggressive to prove notability, so instead of proving notability via text, I'll let the references linked do the proving. Pilot333 (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot333 (talk·contribs), I will take a look in another week or two; please excuse the delay, but things in the world are so much more difficult and depressing that I am not working at very high efficiency. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG (talk·contribs), hope you're doing well. Work has picked up for me so I haven't been on Wikipedia as much. Here's a ton more coverage about the brand I found. Not sure if this will help with getting your approval. Let me know. Thank you. Pilot333 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NEEDS CHECK
Request on 14:33:24, 18 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Kojomo[edit]
Dear DGG, Thank you for taking out time to review this article, but I would like you to advise on what I should do, I'm open to learning more about creating and editing Wikipedia pages. While I have read lots of articles about creating Wikipedia pages, I still find myself not getting it. I believe if you assist in editing this, it will help me to understand better. Thank you
Hi DGG, thank you for your comments. I'll be sure to re-edit.
I actually am not affiliated or related to the company. More of a fan who has some free time at the moment to advocate for Israeli/American companies I believe in.
DGG, thank you for the update and explanations regarding Draft:Jack L Feldman. I have no financial COI, but I do know the subject as a scientific colleague. Should I add a COI under Edit Summary, such as:
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Please have a look at Draft:Nikolai Udianskyi. I've cut out a lot of the fluff. Is this better? Thank you. --Perohanych (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Perohanych, you;ve done what you could, but the community would not consider his career notable . DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new page via AFC but it was rejected due to lack of notability.
I would have thought winning App of the year would help it satisfy this and felt there was enough other sources and notable coverage for the page to be notable, but if not, not and the page shouldn't be created.
What are your thoughts?
Update: Oh my @DGG:, just realised forgot to sign my entry. Apologies not myself in these times. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may have missed this so circling back. Is there enough here to justify the notability or no? Will abide by whatever you say. Reviewing editors can sometimes be a bit trigger happy - not sure how much time they put into reviewing the page and going over the sources. Being rejected quickly can be due to it being an open and shut case and also wanting the article to improve which is an excellent reason for it to be initially rejected. Just unsure as to where this one lies. Your inpuut would be appreciated! MaskedSinger (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on this @DGG:, did you have a chance to look at the new page? Would love to know your thoughts. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your wonderful idea @DGG:! You really are terrific. Will merge it as suggested. Thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I have made the edits you mentioned to make the article as neutral as possible. Let me know what you think and please consider this article to be accepted. Thank you again for your time and effort in helping me with this. CaMenendez ( talk )
Hi,
I think you have reviewed some of my previous articles before. As such, I'm asking if you would object if I went to apply for autopatrol permission so it wouldn't be a burden on others. Also perhaps page mover to not leave redirects in userspace. Starzoner (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and Information Management Software[edit]
Greetings!<
Wikipedia has an unusually robust amount of content devoted to personal information management (PIM) software. This content is useful for people trying to find the right software for their needs in a category that is flush with software titles. I realize Wikipedia may not be right place for this content, but it has been allowed to flourish here, and it now serves as a useful though incomplete reference source.
Among the useful resources is the List of personal information managers which features a table showing software specifications and in most cases a link to the Wikipedia article for each software title. Some Wikipedia articles listed in the table:
I attempted to add a personal information manager (Zoot) to this collection, but the article is getting rejected with the following explanation:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article — that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Among the secondary sources listed for Zoot is a full length piece in Atlantic Magazine written by James Fallows. I would think that would qualify as published, reliable and independent of the subject.
But to the larger point: while I can't argue whether or not articles about software titles belong on Wikipedia, they have nevertheless found a place here, and it seems to me that this area of Wikipedia should either be allowed to flourish or it should be removed in its entirety. If the content cannot be expanded and improved then it will exist merely as a flawed and incomplete reference.
Wikipedia is not a product directory. So the question is the appropriateness of an article on this product, not the general policy.
I accidentally used the wrong tag, and have now corrected it: The problem is not the references, but the lack of encyclopedic information in the article, Perhaps you can add some more material. other than a list of features, all of which seem more or less standard--and avoid advertising terms like "robust" . And please add a recent reference if youcan find one--only a current date in the infobox shows it is still in production, for all the refs were from 20 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 22:39:44, 24 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Tenacious pg[edit]
Thanks for your wonderful idea @DGG:! You really are terrific. Will merge it as suggested. Thank you! [[User:MaskedSinger|MaskedSinger 04:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking Your Assistance in editing these Articles[edit]
Hello DGG, I am a new editor still learning the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. I have had success in creating some pages but I am currently having it difficult creating the two above. I would appreciate if you can help edit the articles or point me in the right direction as to what to correct, as I do not seem to understand what is wrong with them. Thank you. Kojomo (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all: Since articles like these are your only contribution, and since they are written written in exactly the format of a press release, 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 , see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. After you answer this ,we can discuss further. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG, I am not a paid editor or in anyway connected to these individuals, never spoken or seen them. I am a Nigerian trying to contribute to Wikpedia, which is why I only edit Nigerian biography articles, apparently I still have alot to learn. And the reason why I messaged you in the first place. To learn more.Kojomo (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not alone in having these doubts, but I will consider your statement. If you're a good faith volunteer editor, get experience with people who unquestionably meet our requirements, such as MLAs, beforeyou move into the more amorphous fields of business executives. DGG ( talk ) 10:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 15:49:52, 29 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by CharlesMerrimack[edit]
Thanks for your efforts on Wikipedia in general, and this submission in particular. I am new at this, so bear with me. By the way, I loved this passage in your own bio. Good advice!
In the period after the February Revolution had overthrown the Tsar, when the Bolsheviks were a very small minority, Lenin's slogan was "patiently explain", as he urged the policy of talking to workers and soldiers individually to convince them of the validity of the party's program. Most of his colleagues wanted either to compromise with the more moderate politicians, in which case they would have been quickly swallowed up by their opponents, or go out immediately on the streets, where they would have been destroyed immediately. Lenin and his co-workers continued persuading until they were a majority in the key places--the forces of soldiers and sailors who would have been sent to suppress them. That's when they went out on the streets, in October, and they succeeded immediately. DGG (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the submission on Steve Kropper, I created the entry because he is besieged every week with people asking for help. If they know what he is about they will be better prepared and not waste time with the wrong approach or about approaching the wrong person. So I looked at a few dozen pages for people who have done similar work in energy, telecom and public policy. I looked at the Wikipedia guidelines, endeavored to fit them, and to tell a story that was well documented. The guy is a pioneer in energy conservation in buildings, telecom, public safety and has spent his life with an undercurrent of public service. The entry is not an advertisement as he has no upside from helping young people these days as they come to him with seeking career or political advice.
So I felt that your critique was unfair and need advice on how to help this public figure present himself so people take advantage of him in a good way.
[[User:CharlesMerrimack|CharlesMerrimack] 15:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
see below--this will take me another week. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wanted to request more information about the article I wrote on International Swan Day. Is there anything in particular you would need from me before you considered the coverage to be more appropriate to an encyclopedia article than a press release? The organization has been covered in a range of periodicals, as I demonstrated through citations; let me know if you need more evidence on that point.
Tenacious pg, it consists only of the promotional language of pt.1 , and then a list of a few cities where the event has been held. If it's notable , there should be many more good references--not just local notices and items in a list.
Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in exactly the format of a press release, 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 ) 18:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! I am a film critic who has attended SWAN Day events, not a SWAN Day organizer. I am paid for my work as a film critic by the websites I work with, but I am not paid by or affiliated with SWAN Day. I am however passionated about advancing women in the arts. I feel the event is important for both women artists and women audiences.
Could I request to be connected with someone else at Wikipedia for a second opinion on SWAN Day’s notability?
Tenacious pg (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG!
Thank you for your attention to the article Draft: Andrii Klantsa that I am creating.
This man is a leading cardiac surgeon, scientist, doctor of sciences, Honored Doctor of Ukraine, saves lives every day.
I am sure that under your guidance, the article will become worthy of Wikipedia.
Цифров (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Цифров, please remember to add the number of citations to each of his articles. that's what we principally go by. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NEEDS CHECK
Delayed Response to your comments on Draft on Udai Singh Pawar[edit]
Dear DGG,
Apologies. I created this page draft ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Udai_Singh_Pawar ) in October and got a comment from Robert McClenon. Unfortunately I did not reply in time, as did not put the time in to understand how to use the talk pages. Then in January you reviewed the page and possibly since there was no response, so you might have declined for that reason. Unless you had some other concerns, those I would be happy to address.
Very sorry for not having replied in time, but finally I used the live chat to understand how to use the talk page - I hope that I have done this correctly - and so I do have a response, below.
I would request you to take a look whenever it may be convenient. Best Regards and apologies for not figuring this out sooner.
--
The film has been released as a Netflix produced Original Film (official netflix link: https://www.netflix.com/in/title/80998890) and discussed a good amount in the media, especially Indian media...
A sampling of some of these articles and some reviews are below (in addition to the pre-release articles that are there in the references section of the draft). More articles could be found if necessary, please do let me know.
Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Karan5463| 14:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Karan , it will probably be about a week until I get to this--my apologies, but WP is not my current priority --doing the ordinary parts of life has gotten much harder and somewhat depressing DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG; thank you for the great work you do here, I am really a great fan. I realized that you deleted Freeman Osonuga page on the basis of its promotional tone which you are very right about. I have always had the plan to re-format it in a neutral form but not had the time until today, and then realized that it has been deleted. So want to seek your consent & advice if I can re-create again since it has been continuously recreated; thank you as I await a response from you. Kaizenify (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it will probably be about a week until I get to this--my apologies, but doing the ordinary parts of life has gotten much harder and somewhat depressing
I am going ahead to recreate the page. Thanks and hopefully you can help review aswell. [[User:Kaizenify 00:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Seeking Guidance for AfD and Evaluating Sources[edit]
Good day. I saw your list on willingness to help on the following topics. The article in question is Drew_Chicone and I have been attempting to improve it, receive answers and guidance but generally my questions haven't been answered. I appreciate your intro where you say you want to know why if someone thinks you're doing something wrong - that is my desire as well so I can improve. If you have the time to help it would be appreciated. Mlepisto (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Mlepisto,the first step is to remove all mention of where his products can be purchased; if anyone wants to know, they can find it on his website. Then try to find a workinglink for USAtoday, and check you have working links for the others.Remove all refs without working links Depending on what the USAtoday story says, it might do it. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance, it is very helpful! I have been working on trying to find other sources. There was an interview on ESPN 99.3 Reel Talk Radio which is a local fishing talk radio show: http://reeltalkradio.net You don't have to listen to it I'd just appreciate your input on the credibility of the source and if I have cited it properly. Mlepisto (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what I cna to help the article. The interview will not help, because it will be basically him giving his own opinion of what he has done,. It's difficult to write articles here that necessarily depend on sources that are specialized in areas where few WPedians are knowledgable or interested. Myself, I can't say I have ever paid attention to this subject, but I'm always glad to learn and expand my horizons. WP is great for that. . DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This has definitely been a learning process. I am still trying to understand the source guidelines/policies because some things seem to contradict other things and there is a lot of information, but it doesn't always resonate with the "why" question in my head. So I definitely appreciate your explanation. The writing has been challenging and time consuming but I do enjoy the internet research trying to dig up things. I pretty much have only used WP for some random small edits but mostly reading and clicking link after link and ending up going down way too many rabbit holes learning about all sorts of things I'd normally not even consider researching. [[User:Mlepisto 19:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you tagged Marmol Radziner as {{advert}}. I did a fairly massive overhaul of the page some years ago to address previously tagged editing issues. I realize that seems positively inclined towards the subject, but that merely reflects the inclination of the sources (if there was any negative reporting, I am sure that I would have found it, and would have also included it). I'm not sure how that issue can be "fixed" without removing or inaccurately reflecting sourced content. Cheers! BD2412T 00:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a follow-up, I will not be at all put out if you disagree with my assessment. I generally write on less commercial topics for exactly the reason that it can be problematic to write a neutral-sounding piece on a commercial entity that only gets positive evaluations in the sources. BD2412T 16:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It will take me a few days to get there. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no deadline. It just caught my eye from being watchlisted. BD2412T 13:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412. I returned to it again, and did some minor cleanup, but I think it still needs major revision to decrease name-dropping. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but the "name-dropping" merely reflects the coverage of the subject in the sources, and meets WP:NOTEWORTHY because of this coverage. If the article was based on, for example, a list of celebrity clients posted on the firm's website, or PR releases published in outlets without editorial control, that would be a very different matter. While it is true that some of its designs for non-famous persons have also received coverage, the firm derives some measure of its notability because of its designs for the celebrities reported. BD2412T 22:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see it the same, but interpret it differently. The sources are PR, covering the architects in terms not of their buildings, but their clients. But this is not of significant encyclopedic interest as far as the architectural firm is concerned, though the houses they live in might be of encyclopedic interest in the articles on the clients. If the fact that they worked for celebrity clients is relevant at all, it should not be emphasised in extended paragraphs, but a list or a table. The references and links for them will give the necessary information for those interested from that perspective. In exceptional cases architects can be notable in terms of whom they work for, but in general they are notable for their actual architectural work. (where I usually encounter this is celebrity dentists and dermatologists, and here the entire articles are normally deleted. . We certainly should allow considerable latitude to non-coi editors in how they choose to emphasise an article, but it is inescapable that the purpose of a connected editor is to promote the firm in the terms in which the firm wants to be promoted.
But the place for this discussion is the article talk p., so the PR agent who wrote the article can try to defend it. I will copy the relevant parts of this this discussion there. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 08:59:08, 12 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Affenbrotbaum123[edit]
Hi DGG, thank you for reviewing our draft article about Weenect. This (hopefully) soon-to-be Wikipedia article is definitely not intended to read like an advertisement. Therefore, we changed the wording to be more objective and informing. Also, the sources have been reviewed and changed where necessary in order to ensure that a good blend of reliable and independent sources is used to support the given information. We hope that the article now qualifies for being published on Wikipedia as a French as well as a German version of the article have already been approved and are online now. Thanks, Affenbrotbaum123.
Affenbrotbaum123 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gather you represent the company. You must say so on your user page, and then I can explain further. See WP:PAID. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the correct protocol to follow if another editor deletes sourced edits? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i have commented. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! i've come across a page that is reads like an ad and has a lot of unsourced material. I'm not sure how to proceed. Should I tell you the page? MaskedSinger (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
when you come across such a page, and think it unlikely to be improvable, list it for deletion at WP:AFD, and take responsibility for your own nominations. . Except, if you thing there might be something in particular I might be able to help with, then ask me. This is especially true if it is a page written by someone with whom you have previously come into conflict. DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recently the page was declined because "no evidence of notability for this basically local project. 2 or 3 articles in educational magazines is not enough for notability."
There are more than a few activities on the page that are outside of Ohio, including, for example, a collaboration with Daniel Shiffman who is a professor at New York University. The article also mentions workshops at national meetings of the American Association of Physics Teachers and connections to a national group the "Partnership for Integrating Computation into Undergraduate Physics". There is also STEMcoding content on hourofcode.com which is an initiative of code.org, which is a national group. I am trying to understand where the "local project" judgement is coming from.
The purpose of afc is to predict whether the article would be accepted by the community in an AfD discussion. Based on long expeience here, I think it would not. Giving talks at national meetings is routine for every academic, no matter how undistinguished. But I do not have the final word--it you can strengthen the aticle by material published about the project by other people in references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements ,then it would probably be enough to be accepted. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Radio Dunedin (documentary) has been hanging around as a "Promising draft". Material in the draft is already presented in Radio Dunedin so I provided a reference and included the infobox from the draft. There are some sources if someone wishes to split later for a better article. As above there might need to be some formal "merging" for any history if needed. [[User:Otr500 06:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I looked at Draft:Pre-establishment national treatment (shortly due for CSD:G13 per above), and it does appear to be notable enough for an article, although I do not know if the title is correct. You commented at AFC "needs 3rd party sources". I found several and added some possible sources in the comments. I do not know how to add or request a "Promising Draft" designation but this appears to be a good candidate, thanks -- Otr500 (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apppreciate comments like these and I try to follow them up. Fortunately, adding any content to the article resets the 6 month clock. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and make comments when needed or I don't have time to get involved too deep. Sometimes I make a comment and get rewarded with something like "Do it yourself if you think it needs doing." Since my daughters non-medical observation, that I have severe ADHD, might be correct as I can get redirected fairly easy, stopping in the middle of something sometimes is not a good thing. When I grow up (a little more I suspect) or win the lottery (I heard you have to play) I would like to have multiple computers. My now starting to age laptop starts bogging down when I open more browsers and tabs that it can handle. I have 10 tabs open here, one with 3 tabs, and one with (believe it or now) 56 tabs open. I have to go close some now because that has to be close to freeze time. Otr500 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500, 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 that 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 upadting. ). 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, . 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]
Thank you for your reviewing the Draft:Edmond J. Safra Foundation. I am contacting you as I would appreciate your advice on improving it. Is there an issue with the structure, specific terms or sources? Thank you very much for your help! TychéS19 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the main issue is with the use of langage that seems to be promoting the aims of the foundation and praising its work. The article needs to be written from the perspective of an outsider, as a plain description, without emphasis. First step is to remove all boldface except for the first use of its name, and the automatic bold in the section headings; the second is to remove all adjectives of praise or importance , and look critically at other adjectives also. The third is to try to remove all non exact quantitative words, like "several". The 4th is to try to remove all references to its own publications as far as possible, and make sureeferences to cached pages show the fulll details of the original publication, including authors. titles. publication names, and dates. . The simplest guide is that if it would do as a web p. for the organization, it isn't suitable for an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG, Thank you very much for your very thorough and helpful response. I will rework my draft to address all of your comments . When the new version is ready, I will take the liberty to contact you again for your very valuable review. With best wishes, TychéS19 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG, Many thanks for the guidance you provided on my earlier draft. Here is a new Draft:Edmond J. Safra Foundation based on your remarks. It would be very helpful if you would kindly have a look and indicate if there are any other revisions which you would suggest. Once again, thank you for your review and invaluable help! TychéS19 (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TychéS19 , there remain problems. The main one is that it stil sounds like a press release from the foundation: don't use very description of why something is important As trivial matters, remove all the bold face, don't include titles like "professor" and instead of repeating the Foundation name, use "it" --and similarly for other names . DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG, I have recently uploaded an updated version of the Draft:Edmond J. Safra Foundation. It follows each of your latest remarks, I have been careful to reduce the mentions of the foundation's name to a minimum and to remove the capital letters from the word "foundation". Thanks again for your precious help.[[User:TychéS19) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you deeply for approving this article. If there is any specific suggestion for improvement you would like to offer, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I will try to learn from the general pages about improving articles, though the language and format they use are quite complex for me.
Totihan30 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Toti O'Brien[reply]
Totihan30. this needs to be completed by 1/ adding the bio information , since you have a references 1/add full publication info, according to WP: cite book, icluding the ISBN 3/list his major publications, 4/ fomd references to reviews of them. DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Long ago, you nominated Veeam for speedy deletion. You waited maybe two or three days, but no other admin deleted it. So you removed the speedy tag and tried to fix the article.
The article is problematic again now. I've nominated it for speedy deletion again; please feel free to delete it if you'd like.
I think that maybe the article may be a hopeless article about a non-notable company, and that deletion may be the best option. I suppose an okay second-best alternative might be indefinite semi-protection.
If you reply here, it would be good if you could please ping me by name.
Unforgettableid: Not just I but a number of other good editors have tried to rescue this article — possibly on the basis that we usually do have articles on manufacturing companies with a billion dollars of sales, and they have almost that. Additionally, there is an apparently-unchallenged article on their principal project, Veeam Backup & Replication. In the meantime, the company has been purchased by Insight Partners for $5 billion.[11] I don't think A7 is now valid, and the article is not entirely promotional as written, though promotionalism is its purpose, thus not a valid G11. I've removed the tag. It cannot be removed as the work of an undisclosed paid editor, because the original editor has declared his connection in his [user page]. Semi-protection would not help, nor would pending-changes protection, because the editor is autoconfirmed. It would, however, be deleted at AfD unless improved, because it's basically a list of products.
The article on their software is, however, promotional — it goes into details that would be appropriate in an advertisement. It would be valid either as G11 or merge. A merge would have to be done by VM, because it would probably be opposed. There is an alternative, of nominating it for AfD, and suggesting a merge or redirect as a solution. That's not what AfD was originally supposed to be used for, but nowadays we do such things as a broad interpretation of 'alternatives to deletion'.
We have no good solution for dealing with problems like these, except by watching and reverting changes. Either I could speedy G11, and see if it gets deleted, which it might. Alternatively, I suggest an AfD of the two articles. I think it would be possible to make it clear at the AfD that a modest combined article would be acceptable; and then it would have to be watched. I could warn the editor that he is sufficiently COI that he would need to ask for changes. And then semi-protection would work against evasion by IPs; or he and they could be blocked for promotional sockpuppetry. Or, after the AfD, both articles might be deleted. I could justify arguing either way. (This is the sort of situation which inclines me to suggest banning all paid editing, declared or undeclared, but I do not think the policy change would be accepted.)
I'm sorry this is so complicated. If I wrote the rules....
Maybe an acceptable compromise rule would be this: Initially, paid editors can do paid edits, as usual. But, if they violate WP:COI, anyone can issue a warning; or, an admin can bar them from paid editing, temporarily or indefinitely. While they're barred, they can do unpaid edits, like to our Happiness and World peace articles. But, if they violate their bar, they may be completely blocked from editing.
Article Submission of "Draft:Tang's Living Group"[edit]
Dear DGG, Thank you so much for your review of my submission of article "Draft:Tang's Living Group". For your comment of being subjective of my article, I had added 22 independent sources of third parties for its outlet listing. The factual content of my draft are all referenced from these articles. In addition, I have made several amendments to make sure that the content is strictly and directly referenced from the independent sources while referencing the practices of other Hong Kong hotels (e.g. Eaton Hotel Hong Kong). Many of them normally have only a few sources (i.e. less than 5). In this connection, could you please advise the amendments to be made for approving my draft? Many thanks! Endlesssams (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pure catalog listing of your properties.that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but your own website. the references are eiter advertisements/press rleases, or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps it should simply be merged/redirected to angie's List;
It has also been suggested to move it and Home advisor to ANGI Homeservices, I think I would probably oppose such a drastic merge. these firms are socially important in the economy. . DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG
I was looking to start a page on the impute.me project, because I think it is a nice open source project and also they just published a scientific paper about it. Then I saw there already was a deleted draft, that you reviewed. I added in 3 references from scientific literature that are more specific as you requested (=they actually talk about the project). I hope you would have time to look at it again. I hope I did it right with the references. I'm no wikipedia expert. Best regards Yinwang888 (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two topics: Polygenic risk statiification, as a method of human genetic anlysis andcounseling, and the company. These need to be separate articles. The argument for the value of the method goes in the general article, not theone on the company. Btw, ref 15 does not say what your sentence referenced to it does. ---that would be an extraordinary claim that would require multiple indpendent MEDRS quality sources. The paper knows not a claim anything so broad. Pleasde reread WP:MEDRS. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 00:17:04, 20 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by AmanAdhav[edit]
A month ago, I made edits to my Wikipedia page and am currently requesting a review. I tried to keep the tone as neutral as possible in biographical terms and was hoping to receive some feedback as I am unsure about my latest updates.
AmanAdhav (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Don't give a timeline as well as a narrative. Integrate the two.
2. Dont give personal details of no encyclopedic value and littlle interest ot he general reader
3. Try to decrease the expressions indicative of the justice of his political views and the merits of his activities. If you give them at all for background give them once.
Then let me know. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm QuiteUnusual. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Dana Bentley-Cranch, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You noted on my draft on Buck's Store Museum that "additional citations are needed to show wider notice." I'm thinking of locating more press articles on the store, citing a book that explicitly devotes a section to the store, citing an obituary of its owner, and potentially adding an image of the store once I understand the image rights involved. Of course I understand you cannot prematurely approve an article, but do you think such steps might be sufficient to help move the article to a publishable state? Thank you for your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantwong22 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grantwong22, it depends on the details --the question is whether there was general interest so it depends on where the book was published and similar factors so add them and let me know and I'll take a look. But a local obituary is worthless as a reliable source and a picture of the store if it is free from copyright would be appropriate if there's an article , but it doesn't add to the notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DBB, I have since added more sources and have resubmitted the article for consideration. Please let me know what you think! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantwong22 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grantwong22 , they all seem to be from the immediate area. Opinions vary about WP becoming a hyper-local history encyclopedia . (though I, like most of us, am very willing for it to cover my own immediate geography in exceptional detail), I, and most of us, generally make an exception for early or pioneer history--but Virginia in the late 19th century wasn't really in that stage). Since afds in this area are unpredictable, and the rule for passing afc is to have a reasonable chance at afd, I'll accept. If anyone lists it for deletion, the community decides. It shouldn't be up to the possibly aberrant views of a single reviewer. But if you can somethign outside Virginia, please do add it. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, we discussed earlier about looking at Draft:Renowned_LA. You said you'd get to it a couple months ago so just wanted to follow up. The list of sources continues to rise - here's a link to another dozen plus sources to help with your review. Pilot333 (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
the only relevant part in thearticle itself is " covered by major fashion publications such as Complex,[7] The Source,[8] and XXL.", but they are both limited to pictures of their clothing and quotes from the designer. Most of the new ones seem to be mentions in a list of items. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, how can I republish the article;
I added additional sources to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrahlawymasry (talk • contribs) 09:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the draft. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor with less than 400 edits created this uncited article on a journal. Also created Drug Science, Policy and Law. Can you or someone watching figure out what to do with it? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“you asked for access, but its a pure advertisement, as decided by the concurrence of two separate administrators. Declaring a COI as you have done does not give you permission to write promotional material. You asked for access, but surely you have access to your own advertisements, DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)”
It was not meant as advertising, I’m sorry you see it that way. If Wikipedia doesn’t accept it, I understand. But I am the author and I would like to have what I wrote. Please send it to me. Melissartieda (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Melissartieda (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
are you saying that "Its services and products aim to fulfill the dream of capturing the true essence of couples in America and all over the world." and similar text was not meant as advertising?
David you have deleted the page created by me Amrita for Enimm Crews Private Limited. Twice the article created got created. Though company is start-up but it is a private limited company registered under law at India working for good. I have been working in the company.
I am surprised that Wikipedia takes into account only those subjects which are already popular or have grown big. Have been using Wikipedia for 12 years as viewer. So I decided to contribute & have been doing for 6 months but this contributor & review process, two times deletion sadly is disheartening & not very encouraging. Amritashar (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
....advice about a series of articles that the community is not accepting[edit]
....I have been here 13 years, 12 as an administrator.(and 5 of them on the Arbitration Committee). That qualifies me to judge whether people are following the behavioral rules; it does not qualify me to be a judge of content. For most of the 13 years I have worked predominantly with the various stages and methods by which we keep or do not keep articles; I've participated in thousands of discussions; I've rescued many hundreds of articles; I've deleted many thousand; I've improved tens of thousands. This does give me a considerable degree of knowledge about what is considered acceptable, but it too does not qualify me to be a final judge of content. No one person is: only the community is the judge, and it decides for the individual articles by the WP:AFD process. A discussion at AfD is closed by someone, usually an administrator, deciding what the consensus is, based on the policy-based arguments of those who participate. These decisions are not always what any one person would consider correct, but aim at a certain degree of consistency. There are similar processes for deciding on fundamental policy and more detailed guidelines. Over time, it becomes clear what the community opinion is regarding various questions of content.
I do not necessarily agree with these opinions. I doubt that any individual who is very active here really agrees with all of our practices, but I have very definite and opinions about what parts of our content policy should be changed. Over the years, I have been able to convince the community in a very few cases to agree with me, or I have been part of a general change in opinion. For many guidelines I disagree with, when I need to make a decision involving them, I have only two choices--stay out of the discussion entirely, or follow what I know to be the community consensus no matter how strongly I disagree. If I tried to do otherwise, I would soon be removed as an administrator; if I made myself a nuisance about it, I might even be removed from the community.
On the question of the articles you propose to write, I cannot finally decide on them, but I think I can accurately predict what the community will do: they will not accept them in their present form based on their present sources. I gave you above some advice about the type of sources that would be needed, and about what alternatives you have to keep the content from being deleted. It's up to you whether to follow them, but if you continue a campaign to get them accepted in their present version, and continue the attitude of other community members that you are expressing above, I can also predict what will happen: you will either leave on your own account when you see you are not getting what you want, or be blocked.
When I came here, a few of the articles I first wrote were deleted, and some of my changes to others rejected. When I looked around further, and saw the opinions of people here generally, I decided not to continue to try to work in some specific fields, but concentrate on others. My opinions about some of them have not changed, but as I do not try to insist on them, I have had a very satisfying and I hope useful time here. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respected sir,
what can I say but I am deeply touched by your response; please accept my gratitude and admiration; I might be wrong but I think I have received your message; and I have changed my mind; I will try to protect the concerned contents from vandalism as best as I can in spite of my severe disadvantages regarding rights/privileges through content enrichment; though I must confess that I am not at all optimistic about the result/effect given the existing circumstances; but after your response it is simply impossible for me personally to give up that easily which otherwise would have been a perfectly cogent and rational course of action.
Thanks and regards --AranyaPathak (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a page on Dr. Minis Shaji Thomas. reg[edit]
Dear Sir,
I had a very brief exposure to adding/editing wiki articles during my Ph.D. days at IISc Bangalore. This was somewhere in 2014 when a set of people actively writing wiki articles visited us and organized an edit-a-thon related to 'Indian women scientists'. At that time, I created pages for Dr. Indrani Bose and Dr. Aruna Dhathathreya. However, could not keep up with that due to a hectic lab schedule. But now I would like to resume this activity.
I completed a Ph.D. in Physics in 2018 from IISc Bangalore. I am interested in adding content on Indian Women Scientists, Indian Women Engineers, Indian Women Educationists, Indian Women Administrators. Can you guide me on how can I contribute to wiki contents? Can I come up with a list of potential people to be added? I would like to start with Prof. Mini Shaji Thomas. Kindly advice.
Thank you.
OK:
First of all, edit under the same user name as you did before. If you no when you have the password you can request another one since your email is activated. If you don't want to do that link from your new user page to your old one
Then pick the most prominent people possible who will be considered notable under our rules for WP: PROF. One way to do that is to look for people who hold an honorary named professorship because they are always considered notable. Also anyone who has ever been head of the University which in India is probably usually named vice chancellor is also considered notable., but
When you write the article , write it as objectively as possible not like a profile on a university website . Give the place of birth and the education and positions held with dates do not discuss family or hobbies, find the three or four most cited papers & list them in full bibliographic format giving the citation numbers from Google scholar.
Before you do this go back to the articles you already wrote and add in the necessary information and remove excessive personal material. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for Mini Shaji Thomas, she is probably qualified as director of NIT Tiruchirappalli, but a Google scholar citation figures are very low--she seems to have been primarily an administrator. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Nathan2055. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Thomas Mohnike, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello, I recently submitted an article (my first) and believe it was wrongfully rejected. I have added additional sources but there is some additional information. Bexar County is one of the larges counties in Texas. The local administrative judge has, in the time of COVID-19 been making unprecedented decisions regarding court access and jury trials. This has been the subject of much press coverage, some of which I included in the article. I believe that while not all district court judges are notable the local administrative judge making these historic decisions in a large Texas City is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration.
RedBeardBandit, not see any of this as being generally significant. I think you would need national references to do that. But I leave further reviews to another reviewer DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DGG: I wonder if you have a minute today to give your opinion on the talk page of how notable and what condition the article Derek M Yellon is in. @Dudewheresmywallet: doesn't believe it is notable, it is puff piece and keeps placing a notability tag on the article, which I have removed a couple of times. [[12]] Thanks. scope_creepTalk 10:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying you as the previous accepting AfC reviewer prior to the most recent draftification and undraftification. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've seen your comments regarding the Draft:Nikki Hunt. I've read your comments and made some changes to it. Could you kindly take a look at it again and let me know if it's acceptable? I also want to mention that I have added a COI on my talk page for this specific page. See below. Thank you so much
$ Andreeatalos1990, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Design Intervention on behalf of Nikki Hunt for their contributions to Wikipedia.Andreeatalos1990 (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Spicy. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, David K. Pillai, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Please take a look at this article again. Last time you merged the Uday Foundation into Rahul Verma. I am not sure if you wanted to merged Rahul Verma into Uday Foundation. Also someone edited it erroneously and entire article is messed up. Two requests, either clean up the same as you did last time and recreate new article for Uday Foundation or merged Rahul Verma into Uday Foundation. Regards Shibanihk (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could posibly make sense to merge them in either direction, but what does not make sense is to have two articles as the content is essentially identical.Since the present articles is at the person it would be simpler to keep it there. The talk page is the place to decide this. You are correct that the article has been edited irresponsibly; it has been made overly promotional , and I have just fixed it bu removing some of the promotionalism back to the way I had it, and tightened up the wording. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will try to further clean the same with some better references. Will update you once done. Shibanihk (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw your comment on the Draft: The Havoc of Choice. I have created the author's page, Wanjiru Koinange, care to take a look and see if it's good to go?
Hello. I'm curious as to why you moved Robert Peckham (historian) to article space. It had, and still has, zero independent sources, albeit a plausible claim to baseline notability. Books written by the subject aside, the personal biographical details are completely unsourced, and the article creator's edit history seems to be nearly entirely based on the Peckham family. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He has written 3 books published by respectable academic presses, one of them being Cambridge University Press.That makes him notable as an academic.The publications are independent sources. They are not given in standard format, but I never decline an article for that. His key achievements as such as adequately sourced. The routine facts of his education are not, but probably could be easily enough from a CV, which we accept as sourcing for such unexceptional material. I will accept or write an article about anyone who publishes a book by CUP. The time to do the remainder of the fixing is in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
reviewed and declined: No acceptable references, only placement on lists and directories, and a promotional interview by the founder on brdo.com, a purely promotional and therefore unreliable web site. You need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements site.
I am totally puzzled that as a long-term WPedian active on the uk-WP, you regard these references as acceptable.---not just acceptable for notability , but for any purpose at all. DGG ( talk ) 11:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I consider inclusion in the inc lists as entirely promotional .
Did you read the piece on Brdo.com--it is just a platform for the founder to say whatever he pleases. Such interviews are never acceptable in WP -- they once were, 12 years ago, but now the. rule is WP:NCORP, a much stricter requirement.
The role of a reviewer is not to decide if a article is acceptable, but to decide whether the community is likely to find it acceptable at an AfD discussion. We do this by results of AfD discussions, and knowing the effective guidelines as they are applied, and can therefore predict what is likely to happen. My prediction is that it has less than a 50% chance of passing AfD with the current sourcing. How would it help if I approved the article and it then, as expected , got deleted.? It would be much better to try to improve it first. Of course I, like any individual, might be wrong. That's why I do not make the final decision. You can try to improve it and submit it again; someone else will review. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Thank you, I'll work on it. It seems that the Ukrainian Wikipedia lags behind WP-EN by 12 years :) --Perohanych (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG, This is the second article of mine that you have declined. The first was about Katya Cengel (a female author from the biographies needing done list). I re-wrote that article but it has not yet been re-reviewed. So I wanted to work on a new one, I thought I would try a different type of person, so a man from s technologies list. I thought I did what you had instructed. I used all very known reliable outside resources. I wrote about him and not his accolades. I am confused as to what I am doing wrong. Can you please help me understand what the problem is?
people become notable because of their accomplishments, and tthe article needs to be focussed around their accomplishments. This article, however, is focused around his youthful hobbies and opinions. He has since created a software application, bu tthere is no indication tha it is an important invention or hat it is in significant use. Sources showing notability must be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Most of the sources here, 1,2, 3,5, 7, an 8, although they may look like newspapers, aren't. They are PR outlets,. Their stories are entirely based upon what the person chooses to say about themselves. to see this more clearly, look at some of the other stories in the publication. You will find none which are genuine news accounts under editorial control. References 6 and 9 are geneuine news publications. However, their stories about him are exactly the same as the PR in the straightforward PR publications--they're just what he says about himself. News sources in all countries do this: they print press release as well as actual news, and the profession of PR is in large part devoted to placing these stories. One way to see this is to look at the extravagant claims made--if they were genuine, there would be real news accounts in major newspapers about his accomplishments, Another is to compare the accounts--they ar almost identical, including even the headlines. They're all modifications of the same press handout.
In general, taking topics from the list of desired articles needs to be done carefully--anyone may place a topic there. Since PR writers know that if they write the WP articles directly, they will find the articles rejected and be banned as undeclared paid editors, this has become a common trick for inducing good-faith wikipedians to do the work for free. But the results are indistinguishable from paid editing.
The best way of finding topics is list prepared for editathons, or based on genuine news accounts that you see yourself. Before you start, make sure you have at least 2, and better 3, excellent reliable independent sources from books by major publishers or major magazines or newspapers with national coverage. You will also find list of desired articles at the various Wikiproject pages. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cengal may be notable , but the article didn't show it, and neither does your revision. Notability for a reporter is very difficult to demonstrate unless they win an individual pulitzer or something equally important. Notability for an author is much easier--it depends on the reviews, and the first indication of whether there are likely to be substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads The article didn't give it , but I should have looked further. The books are mostly from University of Nebraska Press, or one of its subimprints, which is a very good sign. I shall now add this information to the article. The place to find the information is WorldCat. Of the places where you took the reviews. none is a major publication, such as the NYT book review. Pacific Standard is an online environmental magazine, and is the best of them--see our article on it--not that despite what our article says, it is still active--I shall have to update it . NY Journal of books is of undetermined reliability(--it is not New York Review of Books, a magazine of very high prestige. ). Judging by its Web site [13]. we need an article on it. The article needs to focus on her as an author, not a journalist. To some degree, the number of copies of books in worldcat libraries can indicate significance, tho its not a formal criterion for notability . I made a start at that, and accepted it. You will find listings for additional reviews of her books in Worldcat, and there is some material to find a reference for. And check the exact name of the field in which she received a degree. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The basic skill for you to acquire is to be careful and skeptical about results found on Google. You need to read them, and find out about the publication they are coming from. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your response. You gave me exactly the information I was looking for and I am sure I can improve both articles. I really appreciate your time. I would also appreciate very much if you could take a look at another draft of mine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Josh_Clarke_(American_football) I would rather improve it now than later after it is declined. Again, thanks so much for your answer, it helped a lot! I am very new, so I have no doubt I have plenty to learn here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJSPN (talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiJSPN, in some fields I know just enough to be aware that I should stay clear of them to avoid foolish blunders, and sports is one of them. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you- I did find an answer to that. It is simply too soon. I am working on bettering the references for the Cengel page and possibly trying again with the Kabakibo page IF I can find good references or maybe something totally new. I appreciate all of your help so much!WikiJSPN (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, thanks for your revision of Draft:Scott Waldman. I wonder if you have the capacity to accept/decline the article and move it to mainspace if accepted. Regards. Neuralia (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG, I noticed you removed the revision template from this article with no decision/action with regard to its acceptance. What needs to be done now to move the case forward? Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, Created a page for Prof. Atsuhiro Osuka. He is a academic scientist working in the field of chemistry. So please go through it. Kindly spare some time for this article if possible. Any improvements further needed in language or content please let me know. Waiting for reply Rahulsomantalk - contribs 21:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
see the draft for my advice. I put it there so others will see it also. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed promotional words in this Draft: Amina Namadi Sambo, sir I would think it can be submitted as the submitted bottom were disabled by you Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... t the article will be need checking for references , in this case for the awards, for if they can be verified he is notable , . I should ideally have done then and there, but I'm trying to work as fast a possible to screen all the G13s about to be deleted at 6 months to se what I can rescue--generally out of a page of 200 , and ignoring the ones in sports and popular culture where I know too little to judge, I can rescue 3 or 4, and mark another 3 or 4 for checking later. I'm experimenting with various ways of marking them . DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one is a possible save but have not got around to looking more closely. Sports though... much easier! Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple of refs to the honours section; not necessarily very good ones. Could not find anything for thr other items and 'Fellow Royal Chemistry Society' may not carry the kudos it might be thought it would, judging by their website. Best. Eagleash (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added some of the citation figures, which are high enough to demonstrate he's an authority in his field. The article, of course, would have to be thoroughly rewritten, which I may do, but not right now. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have reviewed my article about Gig Perfofmer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gig_Performer
I'm sorry to hear you rejected it. Another Wikipedia reviewer Timtrent and I put some effort to review my draft together, section by section, sentence by sentence and improve it (for which I'm very, very grateful to Timtrent - he's a really kind person). I'm sorry to hear that these few sentences still look like an advertisement; I created this draft based on similar applications like Mainstage or GuitarRig. I wanted to keep that style, short and informative.
Timtrent and I also reviewed my references so they meet Wikipedia reliability standards, and the corrected version seemed OK to both of us. I was hoping that someone will review my draft and accept it.
Can you please take another look on this draft and give me suggestions what else to do so it finally gets approved? This is my first Wikipedia article, and I really want to to anything to improve it so it finally gets accepted. Thank you very much for your feedback.
--Npudar (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, TT had you remove one ref, and clean up the presentation of others, but none were added , so I don't see how it could have increased the reliable referencing. The best thing you can do is find and add another substantial 3rd party source. But since it's a little out of my field I will simply remove my review, and it will get reviewed by someone else. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for offering advice to Npudar and for the action you have taken. FiddleFaddle 12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:DGG, thank you very much! I have just added one more reliable 3rd party reference from a journal, 08/2020. Is there anything else Ineed to do so my short article gets accepted? Thank you for your feedback, and best regards,
Hi DGG,
I am not in the staff of indiexpo company. It is a community that helps indie game developers and I am a young game developer. I am totally new on wikipedia. I started creating that page because I see other pages on wikipedia about gamejolt and itch (platforms similar to indiexpo) and I was thinking that it was a good idea to start with a page about it. Just it. I contacted few time ago the staff of the website for more news to add but it is not a press release (you can check on internet, it is totally new). And I see that also other fans of this services were editing it. I hope to be clear! If you have any questions, I am here!
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Hi Sir, thanks for your comments, how should I modify this article ? I need to cite other reliable sources? Would Reuters /news report be considered a reliable source?
It would be very appreciated if you could let me know your advice on further improvement.F09200920 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, 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. I will be glad to explain further as soon as you infrom me that you have provided the necessary information DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 01:31:22, 10 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Oeakwari[edit]
Thank you for your message. Could you please point me to the sentences you found objectionable? The pages citing his character toward the end? Or is there more? Should there be more cites? I saw that I had not cited the Wikipedia page for Dr. David C. Sabiston, who hired him and whose Wikipedia page cites his responsibility for integrating Duke Surgery. Grateful for your help.Oeakwari (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oeakwari (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, 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. I will review it as soon as you infrom me that you have provided the necessary information DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)`[reply]
Either the Twinkle deletion process is broken, or you've missed a step in a couple of recent nominations for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 11, and between the entries for Miller, California and Sheep Springs, California you've added two redlinks which need to be created with a deletion rationale.-gadfium 04:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this has happened before. Either I am working too fast for the macro, or the macro is working too slowly for me. . But I remember my first year, where the afd had to be entered part by part manually every time. I'll fix these, if nobody has done so yet. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They've been removed from the log, so I will consider renomination DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm wanting advice on an article I am trying to publish which you rejected: Draft:Robin Friend . You stated that it's "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I have had a look at the notability page and also the specific part of what constitutes a "creative professional" and I personally still don't see why it was rejected. Please could you shed some light on why you deemed Robon Friend not notable enough. Thanks.
No works in the permanent collection of major museums and no references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements/ OI note that I am the 4th of 4 reviews who all thought that this. would be unlikely to be accepted at afd, which is the criterion for passing AFC DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So to your first point, Robin Friend has work in the permeant collection of the Martin Parr Foundation. Martin Parr started this up to collect and preserve “significant photographic works” focused on the British Isles. In terms of reliable sources and press releases, to name a few, but I have referenced It’s Nice That, British Journal of Photography, The Guardian, Cultural Bulletin, Huck. All of these are very well recognised and established and have written extensive articles on Friend. And to your final point, this is the first time I’m hearing of anything to do with the notability of Robin Friend as a reason for the article being declined, the previous times were for lack of references. As a final point to back up Robin Friend's notability, he has shown work in numerous solo and group exhibitions worldwide.
I shall admit I never heard of the martin parr collection, and looking at the article on Parr, it seems a personal collection open to the public, not a major museum. But even really major personal collections can count, so I will check further. At any rate I should have declined, not rejected; I was influenced by the several previous declines. So I have reverted my review; I will think further, and if still in doubt leave it for another reviewer. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reconsidering and taking back your rejection. What happens now? Do I need to do anyhting or do I just wait for it to be reviewed again?
I wish more people thought like you. I feel like you understand what Wikipedia's true intentions were and over the years people have been making up their own rules in order to feel a sense of entitlement. I would appreciate if you could look at my draft of the short web series "Becoming Jiff". Thank you. Drwho92 (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, you rejected a draft page at Articles for Creation about Diet Doctor [14]. I'd really be interested in hearing if you have any more feedback as to why the page wasn’t accepted or any tips for how I can improve it. I really didn’t think the content was an advert – it even contains some criticisms – and the cited sources explain the website is one of the largest keto websites there is. The template decline merely provides a series of generic rationales for declining. AnnaHecht1993 (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP rule WP:NCORP requires references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements . I don't think any of the sources given here qualified. It was as much a comment on notability as of advertisement--I probably should have used both tags. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the page. I actually wrote it myself. My father also has a Wikipedia page and he asked for consistency that I use the same format as his published page and just change the information and make it specific for me. This is his link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_RibacoffHarleybella0714 (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Harleybella0714 (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP still surprises me-- this is the first such instance I have encountered of this particular pattern. I will look at both pages tomorrow. But to start with, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the article on Daniel Ribacoff also seems extremely promotional. that is not unusual--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. I will look further at both. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is your plan about Redsense Medical? You initially tagged it for A7 and G11, and then reverted those tags. You also then nominated it for AFD, and reverted that. I have declined Draft:Redsense Medical from draft as already existing, but I don't know whether we should redirect the draft to the article or expect the article to be deleted and leave the draft standing. What is your call?
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I ran into trouble when I wrote up the noms but didnt finish them till the next day, and the macro failed. I then tried to fix it, and got caught in a circle. My plan is to rewrite the noms, and place them immediately later today, or do it as a joint nom. Another thing to do of course, is boldly merge, but I would then still want to afd the merged article.
Your idea of moving them (both?) to draft might be ok also, except it will prolong the problem, and when the coi is that clear I think it better to get rid of them once and for all. . But before I do anything else, I want to check the med literature this evening. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant that, with a draft and an article, either the draft should be redirected to the article, or the article should be deleted and the draft left standing. If you think that the article should be deleted, because of conflict of interest and other reasons, then I will support the deletion. I expect however that if you also nominate the draft for deletion, some of the MFD regulars will want to Keep it. I know that DES will say that it might be notable, and will oppose deletion of drafts in general. What SmokeyJoe will say will vary from week to week. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
what I think might not be clear is our procedures . If the article gets deleted first, your reason for decline no longer holds, & that was my reason for listing both. I nominate for MfD if I think it should be deleted, unless I think no one else will support deletion. The question of how bad a draft should be before it gets deleted, just as you say, is much disputed among the few of us who are interested in this. Since it's a judgement call, and I can imagine no explicit guidelines that would make the decision easier, I know no way to resolve it except to continue to send drafts to MfD in the hope that a pattern will develop. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DDG. I've noticed that you set Olimex to being protected from creation due to copyright violations after a couple of incidents. That's understandable at the time, but it seems a bit odd now that it's effectively banned indefinitely due to something that happened over four years ago! I've created what I think is a reasonable initial article at Draft:Olimex. Would it be possible to remove the protection so it could be published? Note that I have absolutely no connection to Olimex and the new article draft contains no copied copyrighted text. Thanks - odg (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the protection. But looking at your draft, I doubt that it acceptable: I have made a comment on the page explaining why, but I am not myself going to decline it. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)`[reply]
As you approved lately my other article (Albert Rubin) I would like to suggest that you will look at my Draft:Eran Elinav, about a prized international immunologist and microbiota researcher (Paid-contribution). The article is waiting to be approved since 14 May 2020.
Thank you- Ovedc (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is permitted to edit for pay. But when you do, you should not expect volunteer editors to have to copyedit for style, or deal with missing sources. Learn the detailed rules--asking money for writing for a publication for which you do not know its style is not reasonable. Speaking for myself, I very much resent doing work on articles for which someone else is receiving money. And for paid work, asking any particular reviewer to review an article is not a good idea--my feeling is it makes us complicit in aiding your coi editing. Wait your turn in the queue. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 13:58:30, 24 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Smtsmith[edit]
Thank you for reviewing this Wikipedia page! I would like to point out that Tessie San Martin is the President and CEO of the U.S. office of a Billion dollar a year organization, impacting the lives of more than 20 million girls over the past decade. She leads the largest nonprofit in the state of Rhode Island. In this capacity, Tessie is a frequent speaker at events and is regularly quoted as an expert in the international development field in the media. She has made significant contributions to the field of modernizing U.S. government foreign assistance. Her counterparts include Carolyn Miles, CEO of Save the Children; Michelle Nunn, CEO of Care; and David Millibrand, CEO of the International Rescue Committee, all of whom have Wikipedia pages. I respectively ask that you reconsider Tessie’s relevance as a public figure.
she might possibly be notable , but what you have written is a press release. Another reviewer declined it also. Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, 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. I will comment on it further it as soon as you infrom me that you have provided the necessary information DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there was en edit-conflict in the AFC flow for this article. User:Sulfurboy accepted it, moving it to mainspace John William Helton, and leaving a redirect at the Draft: original location. You tried to decline the draft, but wound up doing so on that redirect. Could you two come to an agreement on whether it should remain in mainspace or be sent back to draft (presumably with a reset six-month timer)? DMacks (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DMacks, Defer to whatever DGG says. I'm currently inactive due to covid work demands. Plus, DGG has a better grasp of notability criterions. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me check that I did do it right. I've been known to make errors of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I am an employee of the organization named Crowdera. It is a six year old crowdfunding platform. We have tried to create an article back in 2016 but due to not being aware of the policies of Wikipedia, the article violated several rules and was deleted. By this time, the company have become well known. There are a lot of references about the company in independent sources as Wikipedia policy says. So possibly the company is now notable against the yardstick of Wikipedia. If the previous creations have caused annoyance, I sincerely apologize for that and earnestly request you to kindly consider allowing the recreation of the article in present situation. I have a small draft with me which I have written at the time following all the guidelines of Wikipedia like neutral point of view, stating facts etc to best of my ability. I would request you if you kindly see the draft article. I have already disclosed the Conflict of Interest as I have a relationship with the organization. I am creating the draft in the name of Crowdera Crowdfunding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crowdera_Crowdfunding) as I can't create in the name of Crowdera. I will look forward to your valuable comment and kind consideration. Thank you for giving your valuable time - Nishant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindtheyellow (talk • contribs) 11:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your candid comment, but you would do much better to wait until someone not connected with your firm recognizes its importance, and makes an article for it. When you're notable , other people will know about you DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I neutralized the tone regarding academic rankings for EPFL. Could you kindly let me know if there are additional points that could warrant the PR tag that you recently added on that page? I will try to work on that as soon as possible :)
I shall get there, but not for a few days. DGG ( talk )
BatYote.. Quite a few changes remained necessary to decrease an exceptionally great overemphasis on ranking, repetition and wordiness, unsourced expressions of excellence, and external links within the body of the text. I've made them myself, for I have learned it is impractical to expect coi editors to do so. It is very rare that I am willing to do the work rewrite an article by a paid connected editor to this extent, but it is my special field.
It's true there are many other university articles at least equally promotional; indeed, 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. They will take many years to remove or rewrite. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG, thank you so much for your work. I wholeheartedly agree with you, and whilst I am indeed employed by EPFL, I have no interest in the promotion of this institution. As a scientist myself, I abhor and refrain from overstatements and unfounded claims. Please note that this article was written well before I started this editing venture on wikipedia. On the other hand, it is evident that this article warrants profound revision to improve its structure and content. I am well aware that as a coi editor, I am not ideally profiled for such a task. Nevertheless, I do trust my intellectual honesty. Would there be an option for me to propose a revised form of the article, that you or other editors could then review before the changes are implemented to the mainspace? I would be very happy to collaborate with you on this subject.
BatYote., Yes, you can do this. There are two options: if it can be done within the existing structure, propose the changes on the article talk page. If it requires more complete reorganization, make a page in your user space User:BatYote/EPFL revision, and note it on the article talk page, indicate the COI, and then get back to me here and I will look at them. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of page on 09:59, 25 August 2020 by DGG - Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)[edit]
Hello David,
I hope you are well. I am new to navigating wikipedia so please forgive me if this is not the correct approach. I work in the marketing team at Fragomen and we recently learned that our page has been deleted by yourself for unambiguous advertising:
09:59, 25 August 2020 DGG talk contribs deleted page Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
I would be really happy to discuss and can work on any edits required in order to remove the text that is advertising the firm. I have created a profile for editing and can do this asap.
Please let me know next steps and how I can help to get this page back online as my firm values the unbiased integrity of wikipedia and feel we are at a loss without a presence on the tool.
The usual general reply is, that If your firm values the unbiased integrity of Wikipedia it should wait until someone unconected with the firm decides as volunteer to write an article. If we let firms write their own articles, the integrity would soon disappear.
But more specifically, the draft reads, " and is recognized [1]as the world's largest firm that focuses its practice solely on global immigration law.", where ref 1 refers to US News Best Law Firms, which is not considered a very reliable source.
However, If you are such a firm, unless you do a purely routine practice, you will have been involved in a least some major precedent-setting cases in several countries, cases important enough to have WP articles about them. What are they? If you can show this, there might indeed be a possibility for an article, and if they are important enough, I might even help you write it.
There is, btw, a custom here that even when people disclose their real names, we use their Wikipedia names DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG for your insight. Is it possible that you could remove the reference that you don't consider a reliable source rather than deleting the page?
Cant enough thank you @DGG: for reviewing my article Shanta Hublikar. Many of my articles are still waiting even after months. But thanks a lot sir. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 NinadMysuru (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
??????[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayU (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
??????[reply]
Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Hydro Flask[edit]
I saw that you nominated a page I recently created, Hydro Flask, for speedy deletion. I am quite confident that the page need not be deleted and I have contested it as prompted, but I thought I would attach my response here as well for you to see.
Honestly, I struggle to understand why this page has been nominated for speedy deletion. First of all, I have no connection to this company--I do not even use their products nor do I want to. Every single statement I made in this article is supported by at least one independent, reliable source, with the exception of Hydro Flask's tagline, which is supported by their website. This company is undoubtedly notable, as evidenced by the coverage of it which can be found in my references. The only thing I can think of is that this is about the beginning of the article mentioning the popularity and quality, but that too is supported by reliable sources and is not my attempt to make their brand sound cool.
Los Angeles Times: "Now we’re in the era of must-have water bottle." "A Hydro Flask has become the kind of gift that can send a tween into paroxysms of joy." How it distinguished itself from any other bottle at sporting goods stores and became a hot fashion accessory is a story about the convergence of several cultural threads: anxiety about the environment, a surge in attention to self-care and wellness, and the simple desire to keep hot drinks hot and cold drinks cold."
CNN: "The Hydro Flask craze is in full swing. It seems wherever you go, there’s someone smugly drinking ice-cold water from a colorful metal water bottle while side-eyeing the disposable plastic bottle in your hand." "Hydro Flask has recently found broader popularity among millennials, Gen Zers and VSCO girls alike." "There are real, tangible reasons people are going crazy for these bottles." (goes into much more detail on this).
USA Today: (This one is not the subject of the article but it still attests to the popularity) "When we tested water bottles this year, the Hydro Flask was one of our favorites. Not only is it a fantastic water bottle, but it is also extremely trendy."
The article primarily repeats the company's advertising. The fact hat the advertising is found in the purportedly editorial content of sources does not justify it. I accept that you had no promotional intent, but we judge by the nature of the article, not the intent. It might be possible to write an acceptable article on this, but I suggest that you are more likely to do it by starting over. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to edit the article, and remove the rest of the origin story whose source can only be the promotional self-serving statements of the founder, and the absurdly false claim to being the first such bottle for cold liquids. Then I wlll see what is left and decide about AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you said this article is "basically advertising for a non-notable individual." But he is as equally notable as any other CEO of a fitness brand. SoulCycle, Flywheel, etc.--those founders/CEOs all have individual Wikipedia pages. And I don't understand how it's advertising. The text doesn't go into detail about the company he runs/the services it offers. It's just the bare facts about his background and career. What can be done to fix it? Thanks
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 DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. The guy is a big deal, though, running a major company. He goes on national TV shows and is really well known. If there's really no way to create the page, I'll let it go and move on, but he seems pretty notable to me. Especially in the health and wellness communities, which are enormous. Thanks. Djb2183 (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the draft, almost every reference is a press release, or an interview where he says whatever he pleases. None of this are independent. The one reliable source is the NYTimes article, and it is mostly about the general phenomenon. It does discuss the group sufficiently that it seems sufficient to justify the article on Barry's, but not sufficiently about the individual.
Just as a suggestion, considering that one of the two firms you mention is bankrupt, at least in part because of COVID, and the other, with related ownership, is in serious financial difficulties, an addition to the article on Barry's about the extent to which it too has been affected would seem appropriate. One good article is better than two weak ones. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is all making sense. I think I'm getting the hang of what you're saying. Last question: as far as sufficient sourcing for the Gonzalez article goes, I did feel as though several of the articles I cited were authoritative and unbiased and did not rely on his words to portray him. Would you mind adding some more color to what exactly the ideal source would be? This way I can go back out and find the proper articles. Many thanks. And to your point about FlyWheel and SoulCycle, thanks for that as well. I'll start writing/researching some stuff. Djb2183 (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On September 30, you speedily deletedLido Learning. An article with the same name has been created. You might want to see if it's the same article that you previously deleted; I don't have access to the deleted article but the editor who created it was involved in the deletion discussion linked above. ElKevbo (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for looking at Draft:Wadih al-Maskin. I answered your question on the page itself. Hope that is the correct place.S713 (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I hope I have adressed your other questions on Draft:Wadih al-Maskin. S713 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 13:36:02, 29 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by CorbinCopy[edit]
...
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. Looking at the draft you wrote, a Wikipedia article must have substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not blogs or postings or mere notices . None of your references meet this test--even the NYTimes ref is a mere mention in a list of dozens of different transactions, bizjournals is a place for distributing press releases, the retailwire interview
is a platform for Dougherty to say whatever he cares to & is therefore not independent, the award is not an award but only an honorable mention, and Dougherty wrote the other 2 himself.
and, Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, 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 ) 15:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm reaching out because you added a {{Cleanup-PR}} flag to Appian Corporation but you did not note why. For full transparency, I have a declared COI and have been working with other editors to update the page through talk page requests. Can you elaborate on the part(s) of the article you are mainly concerned about in relation to the flag? I'd love to help cleanup any concerning language or content. Thank you! JMGAppian (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The template's wording is a little unfortunate, because it's the one we use for too many things. It basically means, in this case, that the article resembles a company web page, but not to the extent of being downright advertising. The following changes would help:
What we need are substantial 3rd party indepedent reliable published sources, not blogs or postings or mere notices, especially notices of sales or of funding--see WP:NCORP for the current rules. About half the references are mere notices, and a numberof other promotional . 4 or 5 strong references are better than 42 weak ones.
Try not to sound like a list of products,
Don't use references like #20 where the article, though in PCWeek, is actually the head of the company giving a walk-through about his product, rather than being a product review written by an independent reviewer. Reference 2 rather surprised me. I didn't expect to see such blatant PR is the Washington Post--now I know better. But the WaPo is still basically honest--it says it's just quoting the company. That does not count as independent. Be careful with Forbes: ref 40 is written by a "contributor", not by their staff. It's not subject to their usual editorial supervision, and therefore not reliable.
try not to write as a list of one-sentence paragraphs.
Try not to use the company name as much. Generally "it" works very well.
Remove poorly sourced claims or puffery--the "leader" in the first paragraph turns out to mean only one of 11. The term should usually be limited to mean 1st or possible top 2 or 3. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate you taking the time to break this down, and I do agree that these are all clear areas for improvement. These are issues that were already on the page prior to my involvement and there's only so much I feel I can reasonably ask at a time through talk page requests so these issues fell to the wayside. I'll draft up these changes and see about getting those implemented. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your feedback! JMGAppian (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you on the article's talk page, but wanted to follow up here as well. If you have the time, I'd really appreciate you taking a look at the changes I've suggested to address your concerns above. Happy to discuss anything that you feel still needs to be addressed. Otherwise, if you feel that the issue has been addressed sufficiently, feel free to paste from the sandbox. Thank you! JMGAppian (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, just wanted to reach out again to see if you'd have the time to review the changes I mocked up in response to your concerns and the {{Cleanup-PR}} flag you had added. You can see the changes here. Please feel free reach out if you have additional concerns or requests. Thank you! JMGAppian (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:I will take a look today or tomorrow. Thanks for the reminder. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm reaching out to see if you had any questions or concerns about the sandbox mockup. Thank you. JMGAppian (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
########
Hi DGG, I just wanted to touch base about this. Do you have any concerns about the sandbox mockup? Thank you. JMGAppian (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG, given your experience in the edition of academic biographies and your good disposition to help learning editors like myself, I would like to request your advice and details to improve my project Draft:Louis Tartaglia. The case may be unusual in as much as the biographed person combines two dissimilar although complementary occupations: scientist and entrepreneur. I hope your advice will serve to improve the article with a view to its eventual move onto main space. Many thanks.
submitted 08:36, November 2, 2020 bu User:Neuralia
Don't use jargon: "help launch " , "help found", " seminal","began his research path ", "start, build, and initially manage"-- a trio like that is Dept of Defense jargon.
Don't use vague terms. The word "several" is meaningless. "described important molecular connections"
we don't say " A brief account of Tartaglia's career is visible on his Bloomberg profile.", but just link to it, or give it as an external link.
Give his whole career chronologically,
Avoid wordiness not "Tartaglia´s further research went on to clone and characterize a number of other genes important in obesity and diabetes" but He also characterized the X, Y and Z genes. wwithooth a link to the papers. The coauthors will be found in the link, not the article. don't say
you may not make therapeutic predictions "dy, expected to constitute a novel target for anti-obesity therapy in humans.[18]" is unacceptable
If you want to talk about citations, do it objectively, in a list of most cited papers.
" this discovery was announced on the front page of the New York Times " is over-enthusiastic for any work lesser in stature than Nobel-prize level.
scientific papers are cited with a formal citation, as in ref 14 not just to the database like pubchem as in ref 24, or 12
bizjournals, is PR
a MIT magazine dsecribing its own peoples' work is PR, not 3rd party journalism. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Law firms (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)[edit]
The usual general reply is, that If your firm values the unbiased integrity of Wikipedia it should wait until someone unconected with the firm decides as volunteer to write an article. If we let firms write their own articles, the integrity would soon disappear.
But more specifically, the draft reads, " and is recognized [1]as the world's largest firm that focuses its practice solely on global immigration law.", where ref 1 refers to US News Best Law Firms, which is not considered a very reliable source.
However, If you are such a firm, unless you do a purely routine practice, you will have been involved in a least some major precedent-setting cases in several countries, cases important enough to have WP articles about them. What are they? If you can show this, there might indeed be a possibility for an article, and if they are important enough, I might even help you write it.
There is, btw, a custom here that even when people disclose their real names, we use their Wikipedia names DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching Draft:Robert_C._Bassler since I responded to the author on the AFC help page. The author has gone through and made *major* cuts, perhaps *too* much, IMO. Given the current state of the article, I think that moving it back to mainspace is appropriate, or maybe just going through and making more exact suggestions.Naraht (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
there are some fixes needed;
Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Hydro Flask[edit]
I saw that you nominated a page I recently created, Hydro Flask, for speedy deletion. I am quite confident that the page need not be deleted and I have contested it as prompted, but I thought I would attach my response here as well for you to see.
Honestly, I struggle to understand why this page has been nominated for speedy deletion. First of all, I have no connection to this company--I do not even use their products nor do I want to. Every single statement I made in this article is supported by at least one independent, reliable source, with the exception of Hydro Flask's tagline, which is supported by their website. This company is undoubtedly notable, as evidenced by the coverage of it which can be found in my references. The only thing I can think of is that this is about the beginning of the article mentioning the popularity and quality, but that too is supported by reliable sources and is not my attempt to make their brand sound cool.
Los Angeles Times: "Now we’re in the era of must-have water bottle." "A Hydro Flask has become the kind of gift that can send a tween into paroxysms of joy." How it distinguished itself from any other bottle at sporting goods stores and became a hot fashion accessory is a story about the convergence of several cultural threads: anxiety about the environment, a surge in attention to self-care and wellness, and the simple desire to keep hot drinks hot and cold drinks cold."
CNN: "The Hydro Flask craze is in full swing. It seems wherever you go, there’s someone smugly drinking ice-cold water from a colorful metal water bottle while side-eyeing the disposable plastic bottle in your hand." "Hydro Flask has recently found broader popularity among millennials, Gen Zers and VSCO girls alike." "There are real, tangible reasons people are going crazy for these bottles." (goes into much more detail on this).
USA Today: (This one is not the subject of the article but it still attests to the popularity) "When we tested water bottles this year, the Hydro Flask was one of our favorites. Not only is it a fantastic water bottle, but it is also extremely trendy."
The article primarily repeats the company's advertising. The fact hat the advertising is found in the purportedly editorial content of sources does not justify it. I accept that you had no promotional intent, but we judge by the nature of the article, not the intent. It might be possible to write an acceptable article on this, but I suggest that you are more likely to do it by starting over. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to edit the article, and remove the rest of the origin story whose source can only be the promotional self-serving statements of the founder, and the absurdly false claim to being the first such bottle for cold liquids. Then I wlll see what is left and decide about AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you nominated this, but before I could do more research, the discussion was closed. In the meanwhile, I asked off-wiki a person whom I know with significant experience in the NFP world of DC and he wrote to me, that "it is well known and reputable." Bearian (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
as a preliminary comment, it has not been the case that "well known" had ever had consensus to accepted as an equivalent of "notable", and I think it is very clear consensus that "reputable" has no relation to notability whatsoever. As you know, I have long argued that we should judge by real world importance, rather than sourcing. but the consensus has been consistently against me for the last 14 years. Even if the 90% of WPedians who disagree with me were to suddenly change their mind, , I think they'd expect something more than "well known".
There is of course the use of IAR, but IAR has normally been used in AfD discussions as a justification for prejudice--either prejudice for including an article for something that is greatly approved of at WP, or prejudice agains including something which many WPedian dislike. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(closed as noconsensus) I will probably nominate this again. DG
Dear DGG, thank you for accepting our draft and your helpful comments. Regarding to your comments wie have improved our article FeGiS:
- Added new inline citations (e.g. Publication in Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology University Library)
- Added specific terms of road traffic safety
- Added more detailed information regarding our existing sources, so it is easier to verify them
Are these corrections sufficient for removing the comemnts above the article?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
User Sichere Straßen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sichere.Straßen (talk • contribs) 09:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sichere.traßen, the references are indeed much improved. The main problem now is the wordiness and the style of writing which rather resembles a report by the organization. See if you can revise to make it as compact as possible. I need to alert you that it has in the past proven difficult to get articles on components of the EC framework programs accepted, so it is possible that my approval might be challenged. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dr. Goodman,
This is Ranjani Ravi, an Associate Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science, an intl thinktank the wiki page of which you edited recently on November 9, 2020 (Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Academy_of_Art_and_Science&action=history). The Management section of the page previously listed the names of most Management members, which I agree, is not necessary but we would like to retain the names of Vice President, Secretary General and Honorary President because of the increasingly important role they play in the Academy which is a non profit organisation that addresses world problems. Not as a form of self promotion or anything, just to make them get the recognition they deserve. But I recently checked the page and found some names missing and that's how I came here.
Having said that, please, I would like to the rationale behind your deleting the names. Is the norm usually to include just the names of President and Chair? Thank you so much in advance.
Best regards
Ranjani Ravi
Associate Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science
Editor, Cadmus Journal
http://cadmusjournal.org— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inajnar (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the role they play in the academy is of interest to the members of the academy, not the general public who reads an encyclopedia . To the extent you think it is of interest to those interest in the academy, you have your own web site. People with any specific interest in the organization will find it there.
I point out also that there is considerable other material in that article which could be considered`promotional, and not appropriate to an encyclopedia ; it is likely to be removed as well. "Getting people the recognition they deserve" is not the function of an encyclopedia . It's the function of a press release. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DGG, I noticed you marked the post I made for Draft: InStride as sounding more like an advertisement and I wanted to see if you could provide any updates/recommendations on how to improve this?
InStride
Type – Private
Industry – Education
Founded – 2019
Area Serves – Worldwide
Website – InStride.com
InStride is an American education technology company located in Los Angeles, California.
Background InStride enables employers to provide degrees and credentials to their employees through its partnerships with academic institutions across the United States, Mexico, Europe, and Australia. Its seed funding was provided by Arizona State University and The Rise Fund, a global impact investing fund managed by TPG Capital.[5] Vivek Sharma is the company’s CEO.
to be a little more exact, this does not show notability AND it's promotional--I could have applied both templates. The Inside Higher Ed articles, and the other ostensibly third party sources, are essentially promotional writeups--promotional for both the firm and for the university . The article itself is a mere directory entry. Wording like "enables employers to provide degrees and credentials to their employees through its partnerships with academic institutions across the United States ..." is advertising-talk, from enables through across .
In a previous discussion, you claimed no Conflict of Interest (with respect to Kat Nouri .) I've looked at your other drafts. I am a little puzzled how you select your topics. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you labelled the article I created as sounding like an advert. Can you give me any advice on how can I fix the article to not sound like an advert? Thanks in advance! X-Editor (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
emphasis on the trivial differences between versions, and the labelling of the product. Use of multiple minor articles and unauthoritative websites as references. I just tagged it for problems; not listed it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know what the general problems with the article are. I removed some of the trivial info in the article. But would you mind telling me what these minor articles and unauthoritative websites are so I can remove their references? Thanks! Also, what labelling in the article do you consider problematic? I also understand that you didn't nominate it for deletion and just tagged the article instead. X-Editor (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
for an example of what I mean see my revision to Hello (company) I removed overuse of the corporate and the product name and substituted generic terms, combined 1 sentence paragraphs, eliminated minor product details of a device no longer manufactured, and condensed the presentation generally. I removed one unreliable source; What now needs to be done is to remove the refs to the unreliable Business Insider interviews, which are promotional interviews where the subject simply says whatever they care to,--such interviews are not longer considered reliable sources. I didn't remove it because its the unique source given for one of the statements, but its information that can probably be found in the others. All of these are common faults of promotional editing. So much of the information about companies in WP is promotional coi editing that it's very easy to fall into the same style. (I also added that one of the refs was from the NYT--promotional eds. often don't realize what we consider strong indications of significance)
Beddit is less of a problem, because there is more to say. Clean it a little, and remove the tag., DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the BI refs in the Hello article and cleaned up the article as well. I also did the remaining cleanup needed for the Beddit article and removed the tag. Thanks for helping me! Although there is some info in the Hello article that belonged to the BI articles that might not be in the other articles, but I don't have the time to go through all of those other sources to see which content to remove. It would be nice if you could that as well. X-Editor (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's your responsibility, not mine, to fix the articles you write. The reason I did so much editing here was as a demonstration, because it can be the best way to make things clear. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just making a suggestion, but I'd be fine with doing it myself. X-Editor (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dear DGG , I expanded it a bit and made it more respectable. What do you think about it ? I think it's quite close to wikipedia level. Rajuiu (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have made it considerably worse by restoring unsourced promotional material, such as the "Notable Lines", and still using totally unreliable sources such as twitter , pinterest, and youtube DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry DGGDraft:Rt Rana content was removed by ip user so that restored
and now i accepted your comments and removed some promotional material unreliable sources
thanks Rajuiu (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you are still using sources like youtube and goodreads. I don't think he's likely to be notable, so there's no point in my looking at it further . DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. dear DGG he is notable announcer in srilanka and he is doing official government notable announcing programs such as india and srilaka government official programs . thanks Rajuiu (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has its own concept of notability , which is that the person has to be notable enough to be substantially discussed by multiple independent reliable sources. The sources are all either just notices, or were written by him or his employer. Wikipedia's use of the word sometimes does, and sometimes does not, correspond to the much more general way the word is used in the real world. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another questionably notable academic. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
from his web site, 1 book, 4 articles. Not usually enough. I'll watch for the afd
@Bearian: He might well be notable as an author; Google Scholar finds a second book, and both appear to have multiple reviews on JSTOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me--that's probably enough but the reviews should be added. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, thank you for your comment on my draft page of Amanda Brock (current CEO of OpenUK) - I myself am not affiliated with OpenUK, but my company is partly, I have declared this and done my best to write from a completely neutral perspective (this is my first time writing a Wikipedia page, so apologies if it's not perfect) and to include as many citations as I could. I was just wondering if maybe you'd be able to have another look at it, or possibly give pointers as to how it could be improved to get approved? Thanks! Amurphy79 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC) A.Murphy[reply]
I reviewed it , trying to explain in a little more detail. It is extremely difficult to write a properly NPOV encyclopedic biography as a connected contributor. It's not the number of citations, but their quality, and , in particular, whether they are dryly independent of the subject. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have saw and tried to improve upon your corrections, thank you for your time and patience, i'm trying to ensure it doesn't get deleted/can hopefully be approved. Will keep trying to improve. Amurphy79 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG! I work with Sharecare and am helping flag appropriate updates to the article (Reaching out instead of making the edit myself in keeping with Wikipedia Terms of Use & conflict of interest rules). Do you have a moment to review my request at Talk:Sharecare? It remains unanswered though I included the edit request template and have posted to a few relevant WikiProjects.
I saw that you're among previous contributors to the current article, so I thought this could be of interest to you. Any feedback you may have will be welcome. Thanks for any consideration. Thanks! SCbhaynes (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
commented there. The best thing to do with the new sections might be to abridge it, using only the necessary refs. DGG ( talk ) 11:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, not sure how to link to draft page, but if you think it would work better merged into the Boucheron firm's page, I can do that :) Thank you for your comment. Red Fiona (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get there, but probably not today. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redfiona99, I looked at the Boucheron article, and it needs so much work that I wouldn't recommend merging anything into it, at least not until it is rewritten. It might be much better if you could add some bio details for Legrand, and submit it as a separate article. He seems important enough -- and I've looked at your other excellent work on French artists, especially in the applied arts---we need a good deal more articles like them. There's no real need for you to go through draft unless you want to. DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. Refs are needed for the facts of her bio, but the sort of refs that establish notability by GNG are not required to WP:PROF.
I believe all of the facts in the bio are referenced according to the work that supports those facts.
2. The publications go only in the list, they do not need references; they reference themselves.
I corrected this.
3. Notability would be very strongly aided by book reviews of her book: look for them and add them as references.
I added part of Sherrie Tucker's review of Kernodle's book with citation.
4. The first paragraph in the lede is enough for the lede. The second goes later, under Professional activities.
I fixed this.
5. Being quoted as an expert has limited value--a few key ones are enough.
I included JSFarman's references as the final paragraph in the "Career" section.
Do you have any further suggestions before resubmitting? Would you be willing to check formatting at this point?
Most gratefully,
SyLvRuUz (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to check for additional reviews. And be careful about using selected quotes from reviews--it can seem like cherry-picking--everyone who write a review ofa book always includes something laudatory about hte author, no matter what they may go on to say later. (as I know, for I've written over a hundred for Choice and elsewhere) I'd put that quote into the footnote using the quote= parameter of the cite template, not the text. And never use external references in the text.--they make it look as if someone who does not yet have an article does already have one--if you think the person notable enough that there should be an article, use the ordinary internal link, it will show up in red. I'll check in a few days. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this feedback, and for your patience. I think I've addressed all of your concerns with my revisions. Let me know if you find it fit to resubmit when you next check. Or is it pro forma to resubmit without asking an editor? Again, thanks for your patience with a new contributor. Gratefully and with the utmost respect, SyLvRuUz (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. I've asked the requesting editor to make the improvements quick-fast, maybe this time next week can have another look and renom if required? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still intend to get there. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback - New Editor need help with article[edit]
Article was re-drafted but the review comments state article reads like manual. Article isn't manual, it provides factual information as an encyclopedia topic. Do you have suggestions on how to correct article?
I gather this is about Articles for creation: Tip Reporting . Try to make it sound less like an IRS help page; it should contain only material of interest to the general reader, not information only relevant to those who might need to know how to report tips to the US IRS -- and , if you are going to only discuss the US, say so.
Specifically, it shouldn't refer to all the detailed IRS publications in the text, just the key ones--a list of relevant publications can be given as a part of the External Links section. . State the rules in plain language, not IRS-jargon, and certainly not in plain language and also in the IRS jargon. It has to be worded so nobody would think this is specific tax advice, because WP does not give legal advice.
If you can find references that are not government publications, use them also.
For you or your other academic/library TPSers, anyone have an interest in adopting this article? The topic is notable, but it has been tagged forever, likely because no one knows where to even begin to transform it. Thanks either way. StarM 15:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did the first step, by moving it to Organizational orientations theory, I think the next step would be to condense, which I could probably do. But, judging from the use of the term in Google Scholar, it's not necessarily notable [15]. The researcher who devised it, however, certainly is, based on their other work in the general area [16]. My current inclination is to turn it into an article on McCroskey, mentioning the theory as part of their work. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I definitely see some good sourcing on McCroskey. I think the sourcing I'd seen on the theory were likely not ones that would meet academic guidelines anyway. StarM 15:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I'm still trying to learn how to communicate on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure I'm supposed to respond to our conversation on your talk page or mine -- I appreciate your patience! I did want to follow up on my request to see if you would be able to restore the draft I started for my company, Endeavor Business Media, as I am attempting to create a Wikipedia page. I declared a conflict of interest on my user page, so I'm ready to get started. Here is the rest of our conversation on the topic, copied from my talk page (apologies if this duplicates work):
The first step is to declare the conflict of interest on your user page, which is User: Abigail Christine. You say you work for the company, ans if your job is to write PR for them or anything similar, say so. The second step is to write a factual acrticle in draft space. On that article's talk page, say again that you havea conflict of interest.
I assume you have a copy of what you posted. If not, let me know here. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks DGG - I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. I will follow those steps. Would it be possible to restore my previous draft, so I can work from there? I have a draft on my computer but I made some changes along the way. Thank you for your help! Abigail Christine (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Abigail Christine (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can send you the draft, if you activate your email, which you can do from the User profile page of your user preferences. See Help:Preferences DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing Enlabs draft page couple of months ago. I have now made changes to the draft, removed low-quality and industry-related references and added new references from Reuters, MSN.com and others.
I already talked about the draft to Cerebellum who also reviewed the draft and seemed to be happy with the changes, but wanted another reviewer to take a look at it for the final call. If you have time, could you please take a look at the draft?
I might get there by Monday. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Randomhero77, I've taken a look at the current version. First thing to do is to combine sentences into paragraphs, and try to use "it" or "the firm" instead of the company name whenever possible. . Second, it is still the the case that all the information seems to refer to financing, some of it in perhaps more detail than necessary. Try to find something else to add, if you can find sources. DGG ( talk ) 10:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking it out DGG. I have now combined sentences into paragraphs where it made sense in my opinion, mostly in the history subheading. Removed company name where possible. Also added new Brands heading so there would be more than just acquisitions related references. Hope I didn't make the Brands sections look too promotional. Let me know what you think if you have time.Cheers. Randomhero77 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DGG I fixed that one confusing sentence which appeared to be just a typo. I did reply, but not sure if I did it in the correct place as I'm still bit of a Wikipedia amateur. Thought I'll give a quick update here as well. Cheers. Randomhero77 (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, hope you're well. I don't mean to be pushy, but is there anything else I can do to polish the draft? Thanks.Randomhero77 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still itnend to get there. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:DGG Sir, I am grateful for your edits on the subject. The queries you raised are resolved. Kindly check and advise. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might get there by Monday or Tuesday DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please take your time. Warm regards RV (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RAJIVVASUDEV (talk·contribs), I think the article is quite good as it stands--the only thing really needed is to explain each special term at least briefly, DGG ( talk ) 10:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, thanks, I shall do that. Best regards RV (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have some questions about your comment on my draft for Draft:Cerus_Corporation. Thanks for your time in helping me get it right.
You ask to remove every reference that is a press release. I removed five such references. I believe all the remaining primary source references are strictly focused on very simple datapoints as listed below. Are these press releases acceptable uses for minor claims like these?
Date company was conceived and subsequent company name change from Cerus Technologies to Cerus Corporation (SEC 10-K filing)
Revenue amount in 2019 (I removed all other BusinessWire refs)
Employee head count in 2019 (Bloomberg - I can remove the second usage of Bloomberg ref in favor of other supporting sources)
Establish Dr Corash and Dr Hearst as the founders (both US News and SEC S-1 - I can drop one of these, which is more acceptable to keep?)
Cross licensing deal with Baxter Medical which got Cerus into the EU (Memphis Business Journal and Infection Control Today - is the latter acceptable I can remove the former)
still working on identifying remaining claims only documented in the FDA-released medical labels supplied by Cerus, for which I don't have other acceptable references
The two references that previously said simply from "Associated Press" have been updated to reflect the archived hard copy newspapers where they were published (Gettysburg Times and Tuscaloosa News). Are these consider sufficient news outlets to keep these references? If not, is there a documented definition in Wikipedia that separates a "major" newspaper from the others?
I am still working on addressing Nightenbelle's concern about REFBOMB. To be fair, all the refs are at then end of each passage, and each passsage uses all the assigned refs. I am trying to be careful and thorough because medical topics have a higher bar. I would like to continue culling refs but I really need to know which remaining refs are completely barred versus which refs are simply raising an eyebrow -- it might be the latter refs are underpinning only minor additions where I could not find those additions in any other medical journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazierjason (talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes you can use primary references for such uncontroversial data points. But it's better if they can be gotten from an official document, like a US 990. . The pt of REFBOMB is that if you have a strong ref for something ,there's no point in having weak refs for the same point also.
Thanks for this clarification. US IRS 990 forms are only intended for tax exempt (e.g. nonprofit) orgs, while publicly traded companies must publish the SEC forms. They seem equally "official" to me; the company/org publishes these primary sourced tax documents to the govt for public dissemination, attesting they are factual and complete. It's up to the IRS or SEC if they want to audit the truthiness of these forms. If there are other kinds of commonly disclosed US or EU govt forms from public companies that are more acceptable to WP, I'd be happy to search if you can give me a form name. Frazierjason (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I shall check the draft in a day or two. Please have patience--we've been running an online editathon in NYC and I'm somewhat behind. (And this is the weekend of the annual Modern Language Association meeting--online this year--I'm trying to catch as much of it as I can and use some for WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frazierjason As for the government forms, I said carefully "for example" For US public companies, of course its the SEC forms, and we generally use the annual Form 10-K/ They contain financial statements; they also contain descriptions of the business, Management statements, & forward-looking projections, as our article explains. The most part is the independent auditor's report, We do accept the numbers on them. (though we also know that interpreting the meaning of these numbers is an art, and needs an expert secondary source) -- Anyway I wasn't suggesting you not use them, but that you should use them. . More later DGG ( talk ) 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)\[reply]
First, neither I nor the author are the subject of the article nor do we know her — you suspected that it was written by the subject. Solved.
Second, you found the article to be promotional in nature. I deleted some parts, added others, and re-arranged it. The text had a bit of a light tone which I also thought was unsuitable so amended that. Can I include these two sentences? They are a little lighthearted, but notable sources and informative, what do you think?
WP makes great effort to be as stogy as old-fashioned encyclopedias. The more personal anecdotes , the more it looks like autobio or COI or promotionalism
If she's notable, it would be as an author. She has one book. The VOA interview is promotional . The Times of Israel article is not a review, but a promotional interview. A promotional interview is one where the interviewer asks leading questions, and the author talks about themself, saying whatever they care to. Kirkus is a borderline source. The article says she's writing another book. Try again when it's published, and gets reviews. Real reviews. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. Requested changes from NowMedical[edit]
Hi DGG. I was hoping you might be willing to take a look here and provide any feedback. Thank you. MarthaLuke (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started commenting; if nobody else does, I'll make what changes I think best in a few days. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. No rush but just wanted to check-in on this. MarthaLuke (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I have made the necessary corrections to the subject. Kindly find some time to review. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I shall get there tomorrow or this weekend. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
No issues, please take your time. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RAJIVVASUDEV, there shouldn't be so many references to their own publications. List only a few most important, see if you can find reviews about those publications, and never use "etc." DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted with Thanks and regards RV (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some have been bent on getting Mr. Ravi IPS's page deleted. they have belittled all his achievements. they also mentioned the award seems to be awarded at least in part merely for long routine service. Then why do we have a wikipedia page for the award alone?
Citations - Articles and news have mentioned him as the ADGP and not Ravi.
Please let me know if this page can be restored, I can have it rephrased or if given enough time, I am sure many more people will contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Abraham.A (talk • contribs) 10:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I previously argued for deletion, and that is still my opinion. Have you any conflict of interest? I ask because you have worked on only this article. It might be possible for someone else to write a satisfactory article, but your progressive attempts have only added yet more routine material. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
