Jump to content

User talk:DGG/Archive 148 May 2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

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

NPROF question

[edit]

Greetings,

I was wondering, would this obituary and this one be evidence for WP:NPROF notability for Johanna Alida Coetzee? I've never written a bio so I wanted to ask. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

certainly enough, together with [1], the record of citationto her work - - note that the first item is her doctoral thesis., which is an unusual situation. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Gruenbaum

[edit]

Hi DGG, I've just noticed that in 2015 you deleted an article I created, Ellen Gruenbaum, after I accepted (and rewrote) a declined AfC in 2013. Or, looking at the edit again, perhaps I wrote it from scratch without having seen the AfC. Your edit summary was "to permit replacement by fuller article". [2] Would you mind restoring that edit? SarahSV (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I have found the version you wrote, and moved it to: User:SlimVirgin/Ellen Gruenbaum draft Se 13, 2013. If, after inspection, you decide this is unnnecessary to keep around , just list it for db-self. The other versions are all in the history. of the present page. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I'm not sure why you did that, and I'd appreciate an explanation of what happened. I've just noticed you deleted the talk page too.
If I'm reading the history correctly, Msashleyscott1 submitted an AfC about Gruenbaum in April 2013. She's a notable academic, but the article wasn't written appropriately, so Joe Decker declined the submission on 8 May 2013. At the time, I was helping to rewrite female genital mutilation, and I had read Gruenbaum's work. I must have noticed she was redlinked, and I created an article about her on 13 September 2013. (Note that the previous diff seems to show that I edited the AfD draft, but when I created it, there was nothing there.)
You continued working on the draft, probably not realizing the article existed. In January 2015, you moved the draft into mainspace, but at that point you would have found the article. Instead of adding extra details from your draft, you deleted the page on 31 January ("to permit replacement by fuller article") and the talk page ("Talk page of a deleted page"), then re-created them with your own version.
The above assumes that I'm reading the article history correctly. My apologies if I've misunderstood something. Would you mind undeleting those edits to restore the article and talk-page histories, and can you explain why you deleted them? SarahSV (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the entire history is present in the current version, except for the version you wrote which I placed on your talkpage. If there is anything else to restore, you are an admin, so feel free do it it. I never object when another admin whats to restore something I deleted--but please don't displace the current article. As I recall from 4 years ago, I saw an incomplete short article, and a much longer though not perfect article, and replaced the short version by the longer., and nobody objected for 4 years. I have no particular attachment to the version I wrote, and indeed it has been substantially modified further by other editors--I have not been following it, and all this took place 4 years ago. If you want to work on it further, then why not modify the existing article? Or discuss what you don't like about it on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to bang on about something that happened four years ago with two paragraphs, but I'm concerned that you can't see the problem and may have done it elsewhere. The issue is that you acted as an editor and admin at the same time. Instead of expanding the article I created, you admin-deleted it, then recreated it with your preferred version. You did the same with the talk page.
I don't know what best practice is about merging histories with declined AfC submissions. I can't imagine that a declined AfC should ever be merged into a page history. But if you do want to merge them, you should ask an uninvolved admin to help: if it's appropriate to do it, the admin will delete the target article, move the new title over, then undelete the article to preserve the history. But that should only be done when it won't cause confusion.
Have you performed this kind of deletion on other articles? SarahSV (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I continue not to see the problem. At AfC , there are often multiple versions--preliminary ones on user pages, drafts in Draft space, redirect in article space, stub articles. When a draft is approved, it has to replace the lot of them. AfC is so poorly set up, that many operations that ought to be performed automatically by the script can only be done manually. Deleting pages to permit a valid page move is an appropriate and routine admin function I've done hundreds of times. It's the admins responsibility when they do that, to see that content is preserved. Not everything is controversial. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, the problem is that the article already existed. If someone proposed a new draft of The Holocaust via AfC, and it was declined, you would not work on the declined draft over the course of a year, then delete The Holocaust and recreate the title with your new version. But that's what you did here. The only difference is that Ellen Gruenbaum had only two paragraphs and one edit, but the principle is identical. Admins can't go around deleting articles and recreating them with their preferred version.
"Deleting pages to permit a valid page move is an appropriate and routine admin function I've done hundreds of times. " Yes. But (a) you can't do it when you're involved as an editor. And (b) this was not a valid page move. SarahSV (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think comparing adding to an uncontroversial routine bio is not comparable to editing the article on the Holocaust. Of course it is wrong to use admin tools in an article where there is some possibility of controversy, but is it reaspnable to try to bias the discussion of what shortcuts are legitimate by picking the most extreme example possible? I can only think that there is some actual recent thing I did wrong that you want to complain about, and it would simplify matters if you told me what it is. .
It's the admins responsibility when they do anythingroutine, tomake sure it actually is routine, and that content is preserved, and no possibly controversial material is changed. I think I'm in general one of the most reticent and conservative admins here in not using the tools in cases where there's a dispute. I'm also one of very few active admins who try to fix foul-ups at AfC. I don't see it as imposing my preferred version but just routine cleanup.
If you think the procedural matter so important that it should be avoided even when there is nothing controversial or harmful being done, certainly I could ask another admin. Since the other admin would then also have the responsibility judging the whole sequence, it provides more work for the few admins willing to have anything at all to do with AfC; of course, we'd fall even further behind, but perhaps you think the procedural issue is so great that it doesn't matter. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we might do well to pause for a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, follow thru re suggestion to ascertain Clarice Phelps' s "druthers"...

[edit]

was in the affirmative. See DRV thread.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so I saw for myself earlier today. DGG ( talk ) 10:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing she's ok with "our" joining mirrors e.g EverybodyWiki.com[3] - even Sangerian Evripdia[4]- I've submitted the draft. Could u userfy your version for me? Id like to plagiarizeum reuse it w attribution (...formally, if ud do it urself w ur tools, or informally, via an edit summary of eg 'material amended by user:DGG after an earlier draft informally submitted them was accepted after review,' after I'd presumably plug stuff from it in the live multi-authored Draft space version).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know u dont go for much meta commentary here'bouts, still methinks Sanger's concerns concerning deletionism proved true.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not realistic of you to expect any admin to do anything of the sort while an arb case on the use of admin tools in restoring the article is active. I followed up on a suggestion of yours about this before, and it did not go well. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try Amakuru.[5]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great news! Somebody cleverly "way backed" your deleted draft[7] - hooray!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise marketing management. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

[edit]

You may want to fix the number you did on DRV. And maybe add a signature. --Izno (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS request

[edit]

I'm trying to whittle away at the OTRS info EN backlog.

I'm currently looking at ticket:2018112710009995

There's a request to remove the issues template on Yevgen Zadorin.

My initial thought was to say no, that template cannot be removed without addressing the issues, but that will almost certainly trigger an obvious query.

Regarding the first issue — whether this individual meets notability guidelines for academics is a subject area in which I believe you are quite knowledgeable so my obvious question is whether you have an opinion solid enough to either nominate for deletion or remove the issue.

I'll fully understand this assessment is not a trivial task so as a related question, is there a process within Wikipedia to answer that question other than AfD. I believe that assessment often occurs at the time of an AFD, but it seems like an odd process to suggest that we nominated for AFD to determine whether or not that issue can be removed.

The second issue sounds like a tough nut to crack but is moot if he fails the notability guidelines so I'll take this one step at a time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's often quite easy to address questions like this, when the subject is clearly notable or clearly non-notable--it's only when it's borderline that it's difficult, and when it is, the only way to determine it is afd, because in borderline cases nobody can predict the results of a deletion discussion. In his case, he's clearly non-notable , and I will bring the afd. As for who wrote the article, it's by a banned sockpuppet. It was written before they were banned, so afd is the only way. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yevgen Zadorin. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


International Anti-Corruption Academy

[edit]

Dear DGG,
as promised, I added some extensions to the article. I am looking forward to your comments and would once again like to express my gratitude for your support and guidance. --Kid from Laxenburg (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous


Request on 05:37:21, 5 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Arsnk90

[edit]


Hi DGG,

I saw that you recently declined my draft of the Article "Dr Sunita Maheswari". Thank you for your constructive comments. I have taken them into account in my latest round of editing. I removed few sources and shortened the article and redrafted the entire article to be more in line with your comments.

I was hoping that you could take a look at it again and let me know if you think that it should be modified further. I'm a fairly new Wikipedian, so I'm still learning the ropes!

I would appreciate any and all feedback. Here's the link to the article again for reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr_Sunita_Maheshwari

Arsnk90 (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assist?

[edit]

I just looked for Jytdog and saw that unfortunately he's gone, but you put a note about helping in issues he has dealt with in the past. There's an issue on the talk page of Jonathan Mitchell (writer) where a user with a COI is trying to pressure people to fix the article per the advert tag - as well as consequently removing the COI tag. He has been accused - I suspect rightly - for using WP as his personal website via this article (and whatever else he has done in the autism sphere). He is trying to stop people from making comments by removing said comments. I believe that until he addresses this his demand for the COI tag to be removed for any reason should be rejected and honestly he should be banned from the article talk page altogether. I wouldn't know how to go about that though. We just need eyes on him right now. Jytdog was doing a good job awhile back pulling him into line over COI edits and so on. 1.136.110.2 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is undner control. If not, let me know. ``

Global Wireless Solutions

[edit]

Hi,

I am writing to discuss my draft of Global Wireless Solutions that you declined. You stated that the subject does not meet the guidelines for notability, however from my draft you can see extensive coverage of Global Wireless Solutions in the media, through secondary sources that are independent of the firm. Furthermore, Global Wireless Solutions is one of the leading firms in the wireless benchmarking industry, and younger/smaller benchmarking firms like RootMetrics and OpenSignal have approved Wikipedia pages. What can I add to the draft to meet this requirement you have cited?

Thank you, Scwiki3 (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as you probably have seen, I accepted the article, primarily on the basis of the reference from the Washington Post. In comparing with articles in Wikipedia , be aware that we have many thousands of articles unwisely accepted in earlier years, and it will be a long time until we remove them all. We try not to add to them. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pay & Allowances ...

[edit]

Hi,

Firstly, this Topic is very important for all public (i.e. Government) servants; yet, many of them are not aware of the correct statutory Law on this subject-matter. And they are searching for the same Online; the Law cited in this Article is directly linked to relevant Government's websites.

Secondly, the prominent Judge-made Law -- which supplements, modifies & supersedes these statutory Laws -- is also cited, i.e. the Judgments themselves are cited in the Article and, moreso, the Court-recognised Law-Reports (which reproduce these Judgments) are linked (cited). There cannot be more reliable 'sources' than Government's websites and Court-recognised Law-Reports, plz.

If this information is not available on Wikipedia, then millions of public servants (which include those employed in public sector undertakings, Nationalised Banks, etc) will turn to another competing Wiki, and patronise the one that they find informative; it will, therefore, help Wikipedia alone to show such important information, plz.

BTW, I am on the Editorial Boards of three International Research Journals, and am a Peer-Reviewer of an International Research Journal published on behalf of Cambridge University (UK); I also teach HRD, Law, Economics & IT to MBA Courses. My Research Papers have been presented at many International Conferences & Seminars, and the Suggestions made therein have been implemented by the concerned Government & other Authorities. Philhorn (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wishes, Philhorn (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP is an encyclopedia , not a tutorial publication. That something may be useful, and even that something may be usefal and important, doesn't mean its suitable for an encyclopedia . Encyclopedias publish well-documented articles of importance not to people in a particular profession, like public servants in a specific country, but of general interest.
nor is WP concerned with discouraging competition: rather, we encourage it. One of the main purposes of the WMF is to produce, not just encyclopedic in hundreds of languages and an international repository of free images and other media, but the Wikimedia software, which is deliberately designed to be used not just by Wikipedia but is freely available for use by other wikis, and hundreds of them, large and small do so, for it is capable of running on anything from a desktop to enterprise server farms, and many people are devoted to making sure it is engineered to be adaptable to many other requirements in addition to ours. One of its widespread uses is for such things as the manuals of companies and other organizations--it is very well suited for complex systems of regulations and precedents. Furthermore, our licensing is such that it encourages mirroring and extending not just our software but our content, and there are a number of such mirrors and competitors. (In fact, I personally have also worked as a volunteer on two such wikis--one intended as a very large scale general competitor , and the other a small specialized subject wiki intended for practical content.) I wish we did have a competitor of similar importance and use, for ti would keep us from getting complacent.
If there is need in India for a specialized manual of administrative law, our wiki software might be just the thing.
But, that said, I do understand the significance o fthe topic , as a general matter of administrative regulation and legal regulations for employers. The prinicple, of providing some facilities and support for people under investigation , is important, and I am aware of similar problems in my own country, and even in organisations I have previously been affiliated with, and I have known people who could have benefited from such a rule.
I think we might be able to have an appropriate article on this topic. The first thing it would need to do , is indicate right at the start that it is relevant and specific to India. The second, is to have references and disusssion of the development of such a rule, for it did not arise in a vacuum. The third, ideally, would be to internationalize it it, by providing comparisons with other countries, or at least writing the article in such a way that it could be extend to do so.
I too was a professional academic--I too have been on the board of journals and international organizations. I too have taught undergraduates, graduate students, and students for a particular profession. Wikipedia is similar, in some ways, but it is also different. Itis particualarly differnet in that there is no concept of authority. Amateurs and experts have the same rights, and this is sometimes difficult for those from traditional institutions to get used to.
I encourage you to keep at it. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP articles question

[edit]

DGG, I know it's generally discouraged to contact specific people about disputes over article contents, but I'm currently in a situation that I don't know how one is supposed to handle, and I can't find any policy page that explains it. I'm hoping that as an experienced admin, you can offer some advice about this situation:

A few days ago, the Gerhard Meisenberg article was tagged as an attack page for the second time in the space of a year. (The first time was last August). I've long considered that to be a problem article, so I raised some of the issues on the article talk page, and in response I was advised to post about this article on the BLP noticeboard. I posted about the article at that noticeboard about three days ago, [8] but at this point it seems evident that my post there isn't going to receive a response.

I've looked through the recent archive pages of the BLP Noticeboard, and approximately 15% of posts at that noticeboard are never replied to by anyone. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy recommends posting at the BLP noticeboard if one suspects that an article is violating BLP policy, but that page doesn't say anything about how to resolve BLP disputes in those 15% of cases. Can you advise me about how this type of situation should be handled? 2600:1004:B15C:B071:4586:8F92:E294:536 (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the article talk page. I think the issues can be resolved there.
As I have frequently said, when I am asked to look at an article, I prefer not to be guided. It is enough to say something like:You may be interested in the discussion about. ... and leave it at that. I will use my own judgement about what I which of the various issues I may want to respond. An alternative way is just to WP:PING me in the discussion. I look at all pings, and respond to those where I think I can be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pay & Allowances ...

[edit]

Hi,

When we rely upon primary data (e.g. original research or documents) we are referring to Facts and not Opinions; hence, 'neutrality' is automatically ensured. Moreso, we are not expressing an opinion that the subject-matter is good or bad. This Article refers to and cites primary documents, viz. Government & Court-records (with first hand Links provided to these sources). Secondly, it is the importance of the subject-matter (e.g. when a statute or court lays down a new Law or interpretation that creates a watershed between the new and the old legal thought & systems) then the change is noteworthy, i.e. 'notable'; the mere 'numbers' do not make it notable, e.g. the number of times it has been applauded or criticised by people who are not recognised Subject-Experts.

Best Wishes, Philhorn (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historians do this. Primary documents need interpretation, and historian do that, and present us the documents together with the context , and the significance. WP is an encyclopedia , and we do not interpret the documents for ourselves, we say what is written about them, with references, and include either a reference to the primary sources or an excerpt. There are topics I could write about here out of my own knowledge: I could explain how librarians select books, and list the standard guidelines--and also say what really happened in practice. I did just that when I taught the subject; I do not do it here.
What we expect from an expert is that will know the discussions on a subject, and can write an article citing them, so that others can go back and see for themselves. Experts have a real contribution here, because they know much better than amateurs both how to find the secondary sources, and how to write about them clearly. It's explained further in WP:PRIMARY. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

[edit]

Beverly Foit-Albert - thx. Atsme Talk 📧 14:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


My changes

[edit]

Good day! I want to thank you for your attention to the draft of my article Draft: Vitaly Tepikin and a detailed comment. I made some changes kindly prompted by you. At the same time he relied on data known to me. Working on material about a person who is our contemporary is difficult. I think you will agree with this. There are still not so many sources and references as expected in the future. My task was to show the formation of an independent scientific field devoted to the study of the theory and history of the intelligentsia, to tell about one of its founders. Is it possible to publish in this form? 5Traveler (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the key problem of verifiability remains: we need an official source from his university showing the position, because basically we have only a biographic listing clearly derived from his own statement. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:25:52, 15 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by JedimasterYoda

[edit]



JedimasterYoda (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page after noticing that all the chasers listed on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chase_(UK_game_show) for the UK and Australian versions of the show had individual entries. This includes, for example, this entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Toh for an Australian "chaser" who has no credits other than this one. Almost none of the chasers from other international versions have individual entries, though (with only 2 exceptions -- based on which criteria?). In Germany, the local version is one of the most popular game shows on TV, with 2 to 3 million viewers per episode and a substantial social media following. All the chasers do, IMHO, qualify for notability in the "Entertainer" category (as laid out in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)), since they have appeared on multiple TV shows on major German networks for several years / seasons and even outside of Germany (similar to the appearances of the UK/Australian chasers). They have also won acclaim in quizzing activities on an international level (European and World Championships, which have separate entries), which clearly justifies entries in language versions other than German. On top, some of them have achieved notability in fields outside of quizzing and TV entertainment as well (i.e. fields of science and literature or sports). They are referenced in other Wikipedia entries (e.g. on quizzing, curling). I have also created entries (drafts) so far for the four other German current "chasers" in the meantime (Holger Waldenberger, a retired chaser, already has an entry), based on their respective entries in the German version. I would very much appreciate your reconsideration in terms of fairness across the international versions of "The Chase"JedimasterYoda (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do you want your organization to be a good example, or another bad example? But my opinion is not definitive--it is just a preliminary opinion on whether it is likely to be accepted or deleted. . Notability in a particular country is not the problem--the enWP covers the world, limited only by those areas where people writing here are able to write about. Altho references in any language are acceptable, it might help to give translations of the titles and key parts of the references you depend on and resubmit. If another reviewer accepts it, I or anyone else can then decide whether to list it for a community discussion. In the end, the community opinion is what prevails. DGG ( talk ) 10:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DECLINED DRAFT

[edit]

Good day sir,

Please I composed and submitted a very short draft about a popular Nigerian Chef which was later reviewed by you and then declined.

Here's the link to the draft: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chef_Eros

It was modelled after this article of a different Nigerian Chef: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Oke

The reason given for the rejection of the inclusion of the draft in the article space was stated as follows:

"This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."


I was careful to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and I remember reliable sources being explained as:

1. University-level textbooks 2. Books published by respected publishing houses 3. Magazines 4. Journals 5. Mainstream newspapers

You can see that the sources I cited are far more reliable and independent than the ones provided by the article which I modelled the draft after.

I'm still a bit confused and perplexed at the declination (even though I avoided peacock terms this time) because I was simply summarizing information from major magazines, journals and reputable News firms.

Thank you for your time. John Oluwatosin Macaulay (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the other article equally unjustified. 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. Do you want your organization to be a good example, or another bad example? DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Akiko Meyers

[edit]

Hi DGG. Thanks so much for cleaning this up. It's part of whole suite of articles for musicians who are clients of 8VA Music Consultancy. Their creator and/or principal contributor is an employee of that organization. They even created an article for its (in my view) non-notable founder, Patricia Price. I had warned the editor about this stuff back in 2017, but have had little time to clean up the overly detailed and in some cases, quite advertorial articles. The other articles in the suite are: Classical Movements, Olga Kern, Haochen Zhang, Julian Schwarz, Shanghai Isaac Stern International Violin Competition, Yu Long, Van Cliburn International Piano Competition, Beijing Music Festival, Marc-André Hamelin, and Mahan Esfahani Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


May 22: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

[edit]
May 22, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.

Featuring this month a presentation by Interference Archive guests, and a group discussion on the role of activist archives and building wiki content based on ephemeral publications and oral histories.

To close off the night, we'll also have Wikidojo - a group collaborative writing activity / vaudeville!

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Metropolitan New York Library Council (8th floor) at 599 11th Avenue, Manhattan
(note this month we will be meeting in Midtown Manhattan, not at Babycastles)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 17:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Deprodding of Aquarion AG

[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Aquarion AG, 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! The company is fairly important, and has been mentioned in several journals. --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 07:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards of your concern about paid editing: I'm not paid by, neither affiliated with Aquarion AG. Thanks for your concern, which I share. --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 07:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
Text mining display of noun phrases from the US Presidential Election 2012
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.
Semantic Web and TDM – a ContentMine view

Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while.

It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining).

Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?"

The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata.

The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.

ScienceSourceReview, introductory video: but you need run it from the original upload file on Commons
Links for participation

The review tool requires a log in on sciencesource.wmflabs.org, and an OAuth permission (bottom of a review page) to operate. It can be used in simple and more advanced workflows. Examples of queries for the latter are at d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource project/Queries#SS_disease_list and d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource_project/Queries#NDF-RT issue.

Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18

[edit]

Hello DGG,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Artistic Foundry Battaglia

[edit]

Just FYI, it appears that you accepted Artistic Foundry Battaglia but I'm guessing WP:AFCH didn't work properly, so it didn't remove the AfC templates, add categories, etc. Is this something that we need to bring up at WT:AFCH? -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 08:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

only if it keeps happenning, or keeps happenning to me. I will do some more Draft acceptances today and watch what happens with them. . AFCH has always been flakey. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly something to keep an eye on! -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Till Winfried Bärnighausen has been accepted

[edit]
Till Winfried Bärnighausen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate placement of G13 speedy deletion template

[edit]

DGG, I want to let you know that you inappropriately placed a WP:G13 on the page Draft:Marie-Carmelle Elie. The page was ineligible for G13, as it had been edited by a human in the past six months. MarkZusab (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict-- I put it with the group I was adding G13 to, and before I finished with them, you added the "postpone G13". I don't think in that situation the software gives an edit conflict message. sorry. (But I do not think it will pass WP:PROF at this stage of herr career--the highest citations are 67, 58, 35, and there have been almost no recent keeps at AfD for biomedical researchers without at least one paper with 100 cites (not that this is or necessarily should be the formal criterion, but in practice almost all with fewer get deleted), and all her awards are either minor or local or student. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Meliton, Metropolitan of Chalcedon

[edit]

Dear DGG, I was wondering if you could be in a position to release the above so that it could be open to general discussion and review. I have temporarily withdrawn from English Wikipedia in view of possible abuse of relegation to draft and what I consider prejudiced review. Whether or not you can do this many thanks for your help in the pastClive sweeting (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Clive sweeting 20 MAT 2019[reply]

in the works--I'll finish in a day or two. I do not consider the prior reviews prejudiced, tho I do think they did not look care enough for sources. Please do not glet yourself et bothered too much by things like this. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bruno Bettelheim

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bruno Bettelheim. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove the {{advert}} tag from Jonathan Mitchell (writer)

[edit]

Hello,

I paid an editor to remove promotional content from Jonathan Mitchell (writer).

Additionally, if you wish, please perform the edits I requested at Talk:Jonathan_Mitchell_(writer)#Requested_Edits_to_be_Made_(Part_3), since I have a COI. Only if someone else doesn't make those edits first, however.

Ylevental (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers Journal 'brownlisted'; your ping to RS/N

[edit]

Hi there DGG,

A problem has fallen into my lap, and my attempts to untangle the mess are resulting in what could be seen as a possible attempt to silence me.

WhatamIdoing pinged you a while back, but only to compliment you. I think they were right to call your attention to this thread, but for more serious reasons.

Let me be clear, I seek your assistance not with regard to an addition of mine that was rejected (about which I am accused of not 'dropping the stick'), but rather, what arose during the process of this rejection. I stumbled upon a serious issue: Frontiers is a very large open-access journal that is being (what I now term) "brownlisted" on en.wp. Editors admitted they would not have support to officially "blacklist" it, but have been operating as if it has been anyway, arguing that papers from Frontiers are questionable and should not be used, and calling it

"junk"*

"a junk journal"

"just pay-to-publish crapola"

"see "crapwatch""*

"a dodgy journal"

"disreputable"

These accusations are by Alexbrn and can be found at the linked noticeboard sections.

Some other editors disagreed, and said they'd never seen such a response to Frontiers before. But at the RfC, only those (3 editors) opposed to it from the earlier, related noticeboards (here and here) showed up, along with one member from the community summoned by RfC bot. So this brings up one meta-issue: has our pool of active editors shrunk to the point that RfC's are not working as intended? Should we look into something like a jury of uninvolved editors to weigh in at RfCs since the bot-summoning can yield little-to-nothing, and editors who choose to show up may be doing so out of a POV, as activist editors, so to speak?

The meta-issue I'd like to focus on, however, is this: Frontiers is being effectively blacklisted by a very few WP editors although there are no reliable sources to support this stance, and reliable sources that hold Frontiers as reputable are being ignored. These are:

Open Access journals are seen by Jeffrey Beall of Beall's List (considered RS on WP) as direct competition to subscription-based journals, and existing for the purpose of putting them out of business entirely - a conspiracy theory of his that I've partially elucidated here.

The most outspoken opponent of Frontiers, who is now suggesting that my questions may be reason to sanction me, includes the large subscription journal Wiley among his clients. When I asked this user, Alexbrn, how he sees his anti-Frontiers advocacy and RL work as void of conflict, my question was ignored and instead I received the threat of sanctions.

My primary concern is not the above behaviour, but that Frontiers is a very large, prolific journal, and this unofficial blacklisting of them, and their inclusion at "crapwatch" (which uses Beall's List as support), is excluding a substantial body of work from this encyclopedia, and it is based on crappy sources and personal (possibly conflicted) opinions of a few over reliable sources.

It should be known that Beall's List was taken offline at the conclusion of an investigation into his practices that was brought about by Frontiers, and conducted by his employer, the University of Colorado. After Frontiers was added to Beall's list of "possible, probable and potential predatory publishers" (his list made no distinction between the degrees of transgression)(eyeroll), they tried to contact him, to no avail. Those added to Beall's List had no way to question or remedy their inclusion, even if they fixed whatever problem was outlined. Inclusion meant problems for publishers, which we see playing out today with Frontiers. This is only the beginning of the problems with Beall's List, though.

  • In compiling his list, Beall used criteria (Table 1) that he based in part on two policy statements – the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing from WAME, COPE, DOAJ, and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) (11, 12). The effort involved in developing Beall’s list was impressive and it was a reasonable starting point for someone who wanted to investigate a journal’s or publisher’s authenticity. However, Beall did not list the specific criteria he used to categorize a given journal as predatory and he mistakenly black-listed some legitimate journals and publishers, particularly those from low and middle income countries (LMICs) (13, 14). He used criteria like “journals having little or no geographic diversity on their editorial boards” and “not being listed in standard periodical directories or library databases”, problems common for journals in LMICs (9, 15, 16). In addition, some criticized Beall for being biased against open access publishing models, and for conflating access rules with business models (17). Other Beall criteria, while identifying potentially undesirable journal features, are not reliable indicators of predatory publication practices (e.g., exclusion of female members on the editorial board). Thus, WAME cautions against the use of prior appearance on Beall’s list as the solitary method for determining whether a journal is predatory or legitimate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5493175/

Footnote [17] above leads to this widely-cited critique of Beall's List (The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall, by Walt Crawford - PDF); it is long but I'm afraid it's a must-read if Wikipedia is using Beall as a reliable source, as well as for understanding the issue at hand.

Obviously, a blacklist of predatory journals is useful, and "Cabell's" is now seen as a suitable alternative, and preferable to Beall's since it employs an editorial staff. It should be noted that Frontiers is not included in this list.

I am a lowly editor with only a moderate amount of editing experience, and the problem I've stumbled upon, coupled with the threats and ad hominems I receive when asking questions about it, bring me to you. I don't know what to do, but I do know that Wikipedia cannot blacklist, in practice or otherwise, Frontiers journals. I also believe that Frontiers would not be pleased if they discovered what has been outlined above. I think it is incumbent upon us to treat this matter seriously, and to not let the issue be sidelined by lesser matters and bulls**t, as happens at the noticeboards. petrarchan47คุก 21:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, either because of dishonesty or stupidity, Petrarchan47 has made some misrepresentations above. Anyway I'm fucking sick of this repeatedly coming up (as are other it seems) so I'm not going to waste any more time on it other than to support sanctions against this editor for wasting others' time. Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a good place for arguing with me, but not for carrying on a fight with other people.
And Petrarchan47 if you want my comments on an issue, just ask for it a neutral way--don't re-present the whole controversy, or guide what you'd like me to say.
I will comment , on the actual issues. tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, DGG. It wasn’t my intention to present this in a non-neutral way. petrarchan47คุก 05:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, I was feeling a bit at the end of my rope. I should not have written this until my frustration passed, and I'm sorry for that, and for mentioning another user, bringing that drama here as well. That was wrong. Thank you for being here, and a great weekend! petrarchan47คุก 21:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Draft:Neisson (rum)

[edit]

Hi DGG, you recently rejected my submitted article Draft:Neisson (rum) on grounds that it is an "advertisement for non-notable product line." However, the entry is in line with other entries on distillers and liquor companies, and I have no relationship with the company. My intention is to flesh out this category of spirits, and I chose this small company to start with. I would appreciate any constructive feedback you could offer.

One thing that I now realize I may have done wrong is titling the page as for a product, rather than a company. Would it be acceptable to resubmit the page as simply Neisson, rather than Neisson (rum)? I appreciate your advice. Swordswfriends (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writer-commentators Ben Park/Matt Bowman etc

[edit]

Sometime'r nuther - actually it was a little over a year ago - you said that "writing general books is a second-level publishing venue in history if one cannot publish an academic research book" and that Ben Park's "book on Mormon history is not by the major specialized published of such titles--or by any of those listed in Mormon studies. If you---" (of course, that's me) "wish to write additional articles on notable scholars in this field, the easiest way would be to take the 5 named chairs in Mormon studies.." The above I think gives a useful vantage point w rgd certain problems often coming up in folks's applications of the such-elaborate-of-ediface @ Wikipedia's guideline "PROF." From its context one's likely to surmise from ur remarks that u feel we Wikipedians drafting possible wikibios ought to avoid embarrassing the likes of a Dr. Park thru exposing that alas he "cannot publish an academic research book." Ahhreally? <scratches head!> Pulitzers came out Apr 15. Who published its selection for fiction? W.W. Norton. For ahhh history? Let's see. It's Liveright/W.W. Norton. Oh and who's sole full-on editor at that imprint? Ahhh it's its "editor-in-chief" Mr. Rob't Weil. Somebody who "cannot publish," say, I dunno, at the University of Illinois Press must go, dragging his tail, with the likes of Mr. Well. Also editor of current best-seller, Pete Buttigieg's memoir. You know - that Robert Weil(!) For what it's worth, What's Park's actual connex w the Univ. of Ill.? Co-editor of an annual (hyped as "premier review journal of a popular, evolving, and interdisciplinary subfield") there.[9] Another rag, a quarterly that itself claims to be the "leading independent journal of Mormon studies" likewise is moving to Illinois come 2020. Co-chair of its search committee for a new editor? Park.[10]

At the time of the ill-fated AfD, Park had published at the Univ. of Cambridge Press, yet a commenters or two in the AfD, being of an especially conservative bent, professed worries lest the Press had become the victim of a mountebank. Perhaps their fretting wasn't unfounded. The Journal of the Early Republic thinks e.g. Park’s "ambition is the source of this book’s strengths and of most of its shortcomings."[11] (Anyway, such a mountebank likely won't include that blurb amongst the score he includes somewhere'r nuther w/in his manifeststions of logorrhea online.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability as an academic researcher generally requires publication of research by a major academic publisher. Notability as a writer of fiction or popular history or other subjects generally comes from writing major works published by a reputable publisher for the relevant genre. Established researchers, when they have a particularly interesting topic, sometimes also publish books with general publishers, but it would be rare for someone never publishing with an academic publisher to be considered notable as a researcher. (At least that's the case for the 21st and late 20th century--in earlier periods some general publishers published academic works also, but nowadays such works are typically so expensive to publish and have such small print runs that only subsidized academic publishers can afford to publish them.) It is also true that almost all academic publishers also publish some books of general interest, so it is not the case that everyone published by an academic publisher is an academic.
It is possible to get me impatient. One way is to repeatedly try to embarrass me by out-of-context misinterpretations, such as trying to equate different authors in different fields. If you want to try to catch me in an error, first find an error.
Or perhaps you are trying to disguise cleverness in the faux-naïve style of Will Rogers or Mr.Dooley; to be effective in this, the prerequisite is being clever. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trying for Artemus Ward / Billy Nye, as far as I'm able to manage is an Amateur Hour's version of that other guy: Marn Dwayne (? Clarke Twayne? something..) Be that as it may: I think with regard to "popular, evolving, and interdisciplinary subfields," as it were, suppllying a "public intellectual" piece of the puzzle counts for a lot. And, anyway, in the field of history, making of waves often's done via publications in the popular press. (Let's see: Bushman published nothing since his Bancroft Prize winner in '67 then went into Mormon Studies pretty much only upon becoming Governeur Morris Professor of History emeritus at Columbia; yet what gave him popular acclaim in the latter was Rough Stone Rolling, published at Alfred Knopf in aught five. In aught eight Bushman became inaugural holder of the Hunter chair at Claremont for 3 yrs. Well this yr - just May 19 - a new holder of this chair was announced at Claremont: Matt Bowman.[12] But as Billy Nye woulda observed, surprisingly Bowman refuses to publish anything at all in the field of Mormon studies despite taking its chair there! - in that Claremont sez in its announcement that doctor Bowman's published Christian: The Politics of a Word in America at Harvard University Press, 2018, followed by another non-Mormon studies title similarly placed. But Bowman maiden book credit was his The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith at Random House in 2012. (Lauded everywhere. E.g, randomly via Google - TheNewYorker: "offers a comprehensive, neatly written synopsis of the whole history of ... " blah blah blah. Claremont's announcement enthuses "widely recognized as the best single-volume [Latter-day Saints'] history" whereas Matt's to instruct "in Mormon studies, American religions, and American history"; before, as "an associate professor of history at Henderson State University, [Matt] taught courses in modern American history, American religion, and race"; plus he's "frequently consulted by the national media on matters related to Latter-day Saint history and culture" )--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line

[edit]

- discussions of potential blp subjects ought not become wp:Attack pages. Somebody signs a history of Nauvoo, Illinois with Liveright and an otherwise hyperintellectual, proficient Wikipedian commentator frankerly opines about what ersatz crankery it is that this somebody inexplicably "refuses to publish" in his subdiscipline - a remark I at the time find remarkably if unintentionally hilarious. That you, David G. Goodman, don't chime in with me in umbrage toward this interlocutor (I dunno toward guarding whatever the editorial flankery or for whatever strategic hankypankery) but instead climb in the tankery with em, getting analytical about specialized-audience versus general-audience fare &c &c makes me believe you're more inclined toward giving aid and comfort to hubristic wankery than toward your spickyspankrily joining along with me in a wikipeasant revolt.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Vijay Kumbhar

[edit]

Hello David,

I am a new Wikipedian hence I require a little more help. I understand that the subject has not been the sole subject of many articles and that is impeding the creation of his WP. His work is reported as a part of corruption or financial scam. Other notable works belong in activism and petitioning. These areas of life are unfortunately not covered by mainstream media in India quite like they cover actors and actresses. Hence the difficulty in referencing substantial coverage on the subject. Although, the mentions of his name and work in the several references I have provided after your feedback may show the notability of the subject independently Draft:Vijay_Kumbhar. RTI activists are a rarity in India due to related risks. Among the few, there are even fewer who are able to use the right to information successfully. The subject is one such example. In such a scenario, media is discouraged from publishing the work of RTI activists due to pressure from the corresponding lobby. Despite that, the subject has been covered extensively if not specifically. Please review my first article on WP and criticise it so I can improve it to the best of my abilities. PadmashreeGhangale (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell's BLP edits

[edit]

Hello, sorry to bother you again. I think that Grayfell probably needs to be reported at arbitration enforcement for his pattern of edits on articles about living people, most recently on the Heiner Rindermann and Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Yr. articles. On the Rindermann article I've reversed the problematic edit, [13] [14] but it's exhausting to try to deal with the constant stream of edits like this, especially because when the material he's adding is challenged, he usually restores it multiple times.

In the case of his edit on the Woodley article, Grayfell has previously acknowledged that characterizing the London Conference on Intelligence as a "eugenics conference" in Wikipedia's voice is not accurate. When I mentioned in my comment here that other sources had pointed out that only two of the conference's 75 presentations were actually about eugenics, Grayfell responded that "nobody was saying that all the presentations were on eugenics, nor even that eugenics was the only pseudoscientific topic discussed."

This edit also misrepresents the source that it cites. The source says that Woodley helped to organize the International Society for Intelligence Research, not the London Conference on Intelligence. Even if Grayfell can eventually be convinced to allow this change to be undone, the problem is the long-term pattern. Based on his pattern of edits about living people over the past year, I don't think edits like these are ever going to stop without some sort of administrative action.

I've looked up the instructions about how to make an arbitration enforcement report, and it sounds fairly straightforward, but I would much rather this be done by an editor who has experience making administrative reports. The requirements mention that the user should have previously been notified of discretionary sanctions, and I'm assuming this comment by user:Randykitty qualifies, [15] even though it was about a different article. Can you offer your assistance with this situation? 2600:1004:B166:CA1D:B902:B86:4B74:256A (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never made a report an arb enforcement, nor encouraged anyone to made a report there. In my view, it's a fundamentally unfair process. I have commented there on rare occasions, usually to say that the matter should not be pursued.
If you want to make a report nonetheless, if you have looked at the instructions you will see that it is first necessary to make an account. As I have said to you previously, there is no reason not to do so, except to try to be distinctive--it is, but not in a good sense. I think most people here would consider it wrong and disruptive to ask others to proxy for you in a dispute; it's an attempt to use the reputations of others for your own purposes.
And, as I have said many times, and have previously said to you in particular, if you wish to draw my attention to something, just say what it is you want to draw my attention to, not guide me to do what you want. But on this topic I said previously, that I think the current discussion is of such a nature that I do not intend to involve myself in it. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the response. I suppose you're right. If I decide that a report is necessary, I should make it myself instead of asking someone else to do it.
Where does it say that only registered users can make a report? I didn't see that instruction anywhere, and the page at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement allows unregistered users to edit that page. 2600:1004:B166:CA1D:B902:B86:4B74:256A (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP 2600:1004..., in the large pink box on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement entitled Important information, it states quite clearly "Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed." Irrespective of Arbitration enforcement, if you intend to continue participating in discussions on Wikipedia and/or editing in contentious areas, I strongly suggest that you register an account. Especially because your IP number constantly shifts after the 2600:1004 prefix, obscuring the connections between your various contributions and obscuring your edit history in general. It also suggests (rightly or wrongly) that you may already have an account but are editing while logged out to evade scrutiny. Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. If I make an account and wait the required four days, is it acceptable to report edits at arbitration enforcement four days after the fact, or are reports required to be about current situations? 2600:1004:B166:CA1D:B902:B86:4B74:256A (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your account must be more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits. I have no idea about your other question, but frankly if it is not an ongoing issue involving very serious BLP violations, why bring it to arbitration enforcement? Anyhow, I suggest we take up no more room on DGG's talk page with this issue. Voceditenore (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 2600:1004. We sometimes notice claims of BLP violation being used to advance a point of view, so you ought to be able to point to a clear pattern that shows ongoing disregard. Since you are an IP-hopper it is not easy to review your overall complaints, or to tell if your claims are consistent and credible. (A page at WP:CRYBLP considers some possible misuses of the BLP policy). The WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is available to consider the merit of BLP claims if you want to use it. Before going to that noticeboard I advise that you register an account. EdJohnston (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already tried posting at that noticeboard about Grayfell's edits on a different BLP article, but my post there did not receive any response. [16]
The problems on that particular article have been mostly fixed by now, but combined with his more recent edits, there does seem to be a pattern of disregard for BLP policy. I described some of the issues with his edits on other articles about living people in my posts here: [17] [18]
If no one else volunteers to make an arbitration enforcement report about these issues, I suppose I'll register an account and do it myself. As I said to DGG, I think I'm capable of figuring out how to do this, but making an arbitration enforcement report would be the complex action I've ever attempted at Wikipedia, so I would still prefer if an experienced editor could do it instead. 2600:1004:B15F:EBD6:D826:6696:8FEB:977 (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP 2600:1004, do you want me to report Grayfell for violating BLP policy? My main interaction with Grayfell was on the Seymour Itzkoff article, and after making no headway against him on that article I eventually gave up. I don't want to have another endless argument with him about sourcing, but if you're looking for someone to report straightforward violations of BLP policy, I could do that. Sinuthius (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinuthius: Yes, if you're willing to make a report about that issue, I would appreciate it a lot, and so would the articles' subjects. In addition to my discussion a few months ago with Dr. Meisenberg, Michael Woodley recently told me that he's upset that Grayfell has added a false statement to the Wikipedia article about Woodley which isn't supported by the source, and that he isn't allowing other editors to remove it.
Aside from his recent edits to the Woodley and Rindermann articles, the most serious issues with Grayfell's editing of BLP articles are what I described here and here. I am not sure whether or not his edits to the Itzkoff and Gottfredson articles are worth mentioning in the report. On those articles he gave undue weight to negative sources, and removed positive sources with dubious reasons, but the problems with those edits might not be clear to admins who aren't familiar with the source material about these people. It's probably best for your report to stay focused on the more obvious examples of misrepresented sources and original synthesis.
Is it okay with everyone else here if Sinuthius makes the report? As I said before, I am theoretically willing to register an account and do this myself, but I would much rather it be done by an established user. 2600:1004:B161:7305:C1B9:4EF5:F74:81D3 (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll prepare a report and submit it to arbitration enforcement tomorrow. Sinuthius (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for making that report. Grayfell's edits on these articles have caused Wikipedia to take up much more of my time than I wanted it to, but I'm hoping your report will finally resolve the situation, so that I can go back to being less active. 2600:1004:B11D:8271:A186:B581:6CC:ED73 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
This [19] page misled me, too. Authors and readers can go overboard promoting a book. But what I came here to say is that this is why I enjoy interacting with you. Your rational approach to evidence is deeply cheering. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:23:02, 28 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Cuestaoc

[edit]


Hello, I'm cuestaoc, author of the draft page for James Taggart Kerr. I'm not sure why you claim the page does not meet the notability requirements for military biographies. Although an obscure general, there are multiple secondary sources cited in the draft providing sufficient coverage. Having been a ranking general, having held the position of Assistant Adjutant General and having received Silver Star citations for gallantry in combat prior to the existence of the Distinguished Service Medal and Distinguished Service Cross (3rd and 2nd highest medals for valor only since WWI), it seems like the subject does meet the criteria for a military history biography under wikipedia's guidelines on 3 fronts. Could you explain more clearly how it doesn't meet the criteria? Cuestaoc (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuestaoc (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will check this again tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Magnus Penker

[edit]

Hi DGG!

I have now updated the draft for Magnus Penker. Could you take a look at it again to see if its's ok or if there is anything more that must be added to the page? I appreciate all your time!

Thanks in advance!

Best, --Strongline123 (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I re-edited it as best I could, and I left a comment. I am not going to review it again myself. Someone else will, probably in a month or two. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again DGG! Nobody has reviewed the page yet, do you know when somebody will do that?

Best, Strongline123 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Vijay Kumbhar

[edit]

Hello David,

I am a new Wikipedian hence I require a little more help. I understand that the subject has not been the sole subject of many articles and that is impeding the creation of his WP. His work is reported as a part of corruption or financial scam. Other notable works belong in activism and petitioning. These areas of life are unfortunately not covered by mainstream media in India quite like they cover actors and actresses. Hence the difficulty in referencing substantial coverage on the subject. Although, the mentions of his name and work in the several references I have provided after your feedback may show the notability of the subject independently Draft:Vijay_Kumbhar. RTI activists are a rarity in India due to related risks. Among the few, there are even fewer who are able to use the right to information successfully. The subject is one such example. In such a scenario, media is discouraged from publishing the work of RTI activists due to pressure from the corresponding lobby. Despite that, the subject has been covered extensively if not specifically. Please review my first article on WP and criticise it so I can improve it to the best of my abilities. PadmashreeGhangale (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

forthcoming. DGG ( talk ) 09:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
This [20] page misled me, too. Authors and readers can go overboard promoting a book. But what I came here to say is that this is why I enjoy interacting with you. Your rational approach to evidence is deeply cheering. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Atsme Talk 📧 18:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:23:02, 28 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Cuestaoc

[edit]


Hello, I'm cuestaoc, author of the draft page for James Taggart Kerr. I'm not sure why you claim the page does not meet the notability requirements for military biographies. Although an obscure general, there are multiple secondary sources cited in the draft providing sufficient coverage. Having been a ranking general, having held the position of Assistant Adjutant General and having received Silver Star citations for gallantry in combat prior to the existence of the Distinguished Service Medal and Distinguished Service Cross (3rd and 2nd highest medals for valor only since WWI), it seems like the subject does meet the criteria for a military history biography under wikipedia's guidelines on 3 fronts. Could you explain more clearly how it doesn't meet the criteria? Cuestaoc (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuestaoc (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will check this again tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article shows 1 Silver Star as the only award for gallantry, which is not sufficient. The a Distinguished Service Medal is not a combat award, . If some other editor accepts, I will consider whether or not to challenge at AfD . DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Magnus Penker

[edit]

Hi DGG!

I have now updated the draft for Magnus Penker. Could you take a look at it again to see if its's ok or if there is anything more that must be added to the page? I appreciate all your time!

Thanks in advance!

Best, --Strongline123 (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I re-edited it as best I could, and I left a comment. I am not going to review it again myself. Someone else will, probably in a month or two. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About an article in Draft process, reviewed by you

[edit]

Hi how are you? More than a month ago you declined the submission of an article, Draft: IShredder. At that moment I made the corrections that you suggested, and I resubmitted the article, but I still did not have new answers. I do not know if I should have contacted you at that moment, if you will continue to review it, or if I should wait for another editor's review. Thank you!--BelleBenny (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the current version, but will leave it for someone else to review. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_148_May_2019&oldid=1145685924"