So the MLP fan fiction "Cupcakes" dose not count for Wikipedia, huh? Though I wonder why that Harry Potter fan story "The Immortal" is added to this site. I don't see the difference about that story in my opinion, but what and why can you tell between "Cupcakes" and "Immortal"? Both of those has their huge internet cult following, despite for them being controversially infamous?
I know this not Wikia, but please give me your explanation here.
This article is an autobiography written by SPA Toreeva (talk·contribs). It was originally deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Natalia Toreeva in June 2016. Then she recreated it (via RHaworth) in draftspace, and after this AN thread that same month, Toreeva was banned from editing the draft directly [1]. (By the way, last week Toreeva drastically edited that restriction placed by Keilana: [2]!) Since she was a blatant SPA only on Wikipedia to massively promote herself, no one really wanted to assist on that draft. So she apparently invited someone (Hta94) to join Wikipedia in August 2017 to resurrect the draft and get it through AfC. That person's sole global edits have been to Draft:Natalia Toreeva, and s/he admits to using User:Toreeva/sandbox as well [3]. 17 days after that user registered, Toreeva told the user "thanks for looking into it!": [4]. After Hta94's revisions the AfC was approved and moved to article-space last week by someone who had only started approving AfCs that very day[5] (and 90% of whose 3,000 edits had previously been merely fixing redundant piped wikilinks). Not sure what to do about all of this. Softlavender (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, she also asked questions at the Teahouse on several occasions and was always resistant to the advice she received from experienced editors. She is knowledgeable about other Soviet dissident artists who are notable, and could be a valuable contributor in that area. But she is determined to have an autobiography instead. Cullen328Let's discuss it22:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
starting with some minor considerations, the reviewer is inexperienced, but apparently not involved. I may give some advice, but primarily about some other articles.
I've mentioned the change to the admin who placed the notice.
I do not think it fair to say that the individual is here only ' to promote herself. She has contributed important work on the major artistic movement, Soviet Nonconformist Art, with which she has been involved. While doing so, she has also promoted herself, both in the main article in the movement and by writing this autobio.
after I wrote the above, I checked, and :
As for the sockpuppettry, I blocked based on unmistakable evidence
As for the article, AfD would be appropriate for promotionalism; notability is uncertain. . But since I blocked for a week, it would be fairer to hold off on that to give a chance for reply. It doesnt quite fall under our current interpretation of G5, since the contributor wasnt banned at the time. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...
I remain more concerned about serious matters like puppettry and COI. I see no need to discuss this further at this point. If there are problems after the block ends, then matters can be reopened DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all,
I received an email that the discussion about my name is on this DGG talk page. That's why I'm here.
Here is my little bit.
Let me tell that you are wrong in this questionable concept, and that I'm using multiple accounts is NOT TRUE.
And that I was banned to do any editing is also NOT TRUE.
I was not permitted to edit the Draft:Natalia Toreeva, but was encouraged to do the editing and do any contributions to any articles and specifically to the Soviet Nonconformist Art.
Lacypaperclip (talk) moved the Draft to the AfC not because this person, as you wrongly think knows me, but because this person may be has the knowledge of the Russian art, and has the own not bias opinion about the Article. And as you negatively mention that person is a new reviewer and does not have an experience, the question is why you got this negativity even if that person does not have much experience? Should you support the reviewer and not put the negativity to that address? If someone has more experience, it should not mean the etiquette should be broken.
The more experienced person must not be impatient, and must be sympathetic, enthusiastic, cheerful and of even temper .
Regarding my "manipulation" in my Talk page, as Softlavender (talk) told, it is also NOT TRUE. I did clean up the page and not because I wanted to do something misleading. For example, why I need to have the comments that my copyright file should be resubmitted again, and than after resubmitting, it was accepted, etc? And if I can't delete any file, should the note "Please do not modify or delete it" be included? I did not have any such comments.
Even in your talk page you mentioned that "there is no policy deleting messages or responding in a way you don't like". And why when DGG ( talk ) deleted your "dirty" input about me into this talk page, and you are quiet about it?
Regarding the Article. If you remember, you helped with the editing this article, and after I was not permitted to do editing myself, you suggested to move any info to the Sandbox, so any contributor(s) can use the info from the Sandbox to the Draft. And I thanked you for your input in editing and suggestion about the Sandbox. What's wrong if I thanked the person?
I don't know what is the motive behind of your digging under me and trying to reject the Article which was approved now? The politics against Russia/Russians, not knowledge the Art, or to be angry on your life, frustration, or something else? To be bias or be police is unacceptable. It should be recognized and respected the rights of others. If you don't see it, or don't have not enough knowledge, should YOU be blocked from the editing, if it does not bring the neutral point of view?
Cullen328 (talk), you started your input with "If I recall correctly...". Do you think this your Testament statement is enough to suggest it is OK to Delete the approved article?
But my main disappointment is to see DGG reaction. I respected DGG from the beginning, when I asked him for advice on the Teahouse page. He told me that the Article has the notability, but needs to be improved by editing. Now he is under influence of false accusation and in his words "notability is uncertain" and he is ready to delete the article. DGG, may be it is better to delete your article on your talk page "People matter more than article.."? And that Reviewers needs to have "high standards", with which I totally agreed.
I was not banned from the editing any articles (only the Draft) and I was not promoted myself. The Soviet Nonconformist Art article includes the Artists from the Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc art groups. I did not include the info about other cities but only St. Petersburg group which I was part of that movement. And because of it and my knowledge, people asked me to have the Article about Natalia Toreeva, so the scholars, libraries, and people, who is interesting in Russian art, would know that those contributions were done by the real person. And I felt very much honored to be asked to write a few words. Instead, you think that my input in the Soviet Nonconformist Art is self promotion, where I included also my name. But I was part of the "School of Sidlin" art group, and in the Reference section, I was added for each artist that that person was the Member of the "School of Sidlin" art group, or members of Sterligov art group, or another group. I added the same words for each member, including my name. Where is the promotion - it is fact. But it was deleted by DGG as the promotion myself. It is wrong. It shows also falsely accusing of me, which is the sign of bias and not neutrality.
If you will delete the Article, I will definitely complain, and also I might ask Jimmy Wales, the Founder of Wikipedia, who is asking for the money contribution to support Wikipedia, if he is happy to see the Wikipedia and how the people are handling the content. For me, it is good outside, but "dirty" inside. The volunteers should working on improving the articles with the best of their knowledge, and not cut the throats, bullying, abuse their power, false accusations, but assume working with the good faith. The system should be the honest one and not bullied to just satisfy your own satisfaction, thinking that those functions would make the living enjoyable. People should be resigned (or someone should resign them), if they have many complains and don't follow the high standards. And if the person does not know history, for example, or art, that person should not be involved with the revision of that kind of Article.
I understand that there might be difference of opinion, and I recognize the right to those opinions. And independently from your actions, which can include the acceptance the Article, or helping on improving it, since there is always the room for improvement, or deletion the article, or you can delete my all contributions to the main article (the Soviet Nonconformist Art), the art will be continued.
You may edit it as you please or put it in the wastepaper basket. You can chop it down or tear it apart as you see fit, it is up to you. But at least it should be displayed a sense of respect for one to others, independently from the differences of opinion or individual circumstances.
I'm 76 years old and the health is more important than fighting as seems with the people of the low level standards. Where is the moral?
It is distraction, and it is not worth to fight. A genuine equal opportunity should be to all and to show the good conduct toward others, that they are worthy to belong. But in my case, what the wasted about 2 years of my time. I thought it is my mission to include the information of our art time of 1970-1980th into the Wikipedia, and I thought I made a valuable contribution to it. And not to have it, it is too bad from the art history point of view. What a shame!
I am not going to discuss it anymore. That is truth no one should deny.
Please don't delete my response since I may use it in my complain.
I wish you and your family Marry X-Mas and Happy holidays! Enjoy your life!Toreeva 02:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is on John's Roast Park, and it has never been nominated for deletion by ST or anyone. As for the deletions made,
para 1 as worded is advertising--the quote should have been shortened.
para 2 should not have been removed
probably para 3 also should have been kept .
But he did not nominate that article for AfD. I'm not sure why--I might.
As for the notices, remember that removing a notice is permitted, and taken as evidence that they have been read. If someone removes one, there's no point placing it a second time.
ST does seems follow me; so do a number of other people. That does not mean he pays attention to my suggestions, or that we agree. We tend to work differently--I try to work on as many articles as possible, he concentrate -- sometimes in my opinion excessively-- on a few. We both have a similar view of promotionalism , but so do at least a few dozen other very active editors.
But more generally, you raise an important point:
the problem of whether to remove somewhat promotional material from promotional articles before listing from AfD is a dilemma. I have come across articles that I try to improve, and then after sharply editing content, decide they are unsalvageable, and take them to afd. If I leave them in their improved but still inadequate state it doesn't give a fair impression of the promotional intent and overall promotional writing. If I return the contents, i am deliberately making the article worse than it needs to be. Since the promotional content can also contain material relevant to notability , this makes the dilemma even more difficult. (What I now usually do is leave it in the improved form and give a link to the original in the discussion).
As we know, there is a disagreement of how strictly to interpret NOT ADVERTISING, and on how bad a article has to be before it qualifies for G11 as requiring fundamental rewriting. My position here has changed over the years from considerable tolerance for anything vaguely notable--though I was always a bit hesitant about local interest material-- to an emphasis on removing promotionalism to discourage the usually paid promotional editing.
There is also a disagreement on the notability of these restaurants, and the promotionalism in them is normally from fans, not paid editors--and it is difficult to write about them ayt all without sounding a little promotional . As far as WP guidelines go, anyone experienced at AfD could equally easily write a keep or a delete rationale for most of them, so it's basically a question of what extent of local detail we think WP should cover. I have sometimes been tempted to add every restaurant in Brooklyn that got a significant write-up in the NYT. If the current trend holds towards keeping such articles, I may do it yet. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. The problem is think is that sources such as Serious Eats or NYT are national notable sources which gives the subject notability, unfortunately these articles would generally be written in a way that praises the subject. I've noticed (not in this case) that some editors tend to remove sources and when sources such as Serious Eats are removed it could make the subject look vastly less notable, as a result the discussion could be skewed. Valoemtalkcontrib16:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
restaurant and other reviews
I'm not familiar with Serious Eats, but I am a close reader of the NYT restaurant reviews. They cover, as would be expected, not every restaurant in the city, but those that are significant in some way: established favorites, currently popular or fashionable, new restaurants from well-known cook or owners. This inevitably produces a bias towards places of some merit, but everything considered, the reviews are generally critical, and by no means extremely laudatory. (The number and venom of bad reviews has varied over the years with their different critics) .
More basically, essentially any article about any company or professional will have a promotional value. it's a mixim that all publicity is good, and having an article in WP has become regarded as a sign of merit. If we are going to cover anything in the current world, or that affects the current world, the articles will have some degree of promotional effect. this gives us a dangerous significance that we must take precautions about. The efforts of the PR industry can only be countered by true nPOV editing, and it is absurd to expect any professional or organization to actually write or commission a true NPOV article. Therefore, we need to consider all coi editors as at least potentially destructive of our values, and, the world being as it is, they will be particularly dangerous when money is involved. The attempt at paid editinghas corruptd too many good editors here, and has attracted a remarkable number of incompetents. More and more, I think the only practical way forward is to remove them. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to Right Great Wrongs. The Rule is WP:CSDG10, and the justice of the assertion is irrelevant.A NPOV article on the organization might be possible, but it must not be wording sensationally, nor should you have done so here. It is vey difficult to write about topics where one has a strong point of view. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
consensus at AfDs
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. --Mhhosseintalk10:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:DGG - begging your forgiveness for repeating this request, perhaps you did not see it as part of our previous conversation on this matter. Regarding the consistency of material on the Sutton personal page, in keeping with the impasse surrounding his WP:NOTE status, this must be in reference to valid citations, which he accrued only prior to the Darwin-Wallace-Matthew work. All of the latter output has been by self-publishing, or by publishing in unspecialised journals, and does not meet WP:RELY standards for reliability. Therefore, " he that shall not be named " is getting away with forwarding an unratified personal agenda, piggybacking on a previous valid publication record. My original request with links,
Is it therefore possible to please request that at least these references are removed from his WP page? Because, they were irrelevant to the decision not to delete the page, which was taken on the basis of his citations in earlier work in criminology. Ergo, the material about which I am concerned does not relate to any WP:NOTE ; also, of significance, these references they are not peer-reviewed, yet used to support the text referring to his claims (references 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31) - that text (sections on Mythbusting and Patrick_Matthew_and_natural_selection) will also need to be excised, as neither has any valid references in support (of note, The Internet Journal of Criminology is edited by himself, and not tenable as an independent source). --Jfderry (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I was chatting with some folks about an idea that will likely never see the light of day, but I'd like your feedback on it. An outright ban of CORP articles in AfC for a 6 mo trial. I was joking about it initially, but the more I thought about it I'm curious what the outcome would be. If I had to guess, no one would notice other than paid editors. I can't think of people searching Google for "Bizco" and having an erosion of trust because Wikipedia doesn't have it. It also has a potential interesting side effect of preventing companies that haven't been around for more that six months, which is kind of an indirect SNG for CORP. Again, no chance of it being implemented, just thought getting your views on it would be insightful. Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk00:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had been thinking of something like that for companies formed after 1990 or thereabouts. There are of course other areas, such as their executives, and all the NGOs, and politicians, and the artists--all of who use paid editors almost as much. But it would be an interesting moratorium. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea: on the whole, it might be a net positive. We'd have to flesh out the specifics, obviously. The other thing is whether or not something like this could achieve consensus and how it would be enforced. A simple decline of all corps? a CSD X criteria? There are also conversations going on now at WT:CORP surrounding increasing the notability requirements for corporations that might be relevant here. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus bit seems the biggest obstacle, but I've been trying to rack my brain for any "cost" this would have to WP as a whole, and I can't come up with any. The only debate I could see (which I feel is a weak one) is driving paid editors to more nefarious methods of publishing. If nothing else, people concerned about the AfC backlog should be on board. I'd be fine with it simply being a decline template, something like, "Currently Wikipedia is undergoing a trial where new articles about corporations will not be accepted. Therefore your submission cannot be accepted at this time." Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk00:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possible. OTOH, a new CSD would be unlkely. Getting new CSDs agreed is one of the most challenging aspects of Wikipedia. Everyone knows that I'm a firm proponent of a total ban on PE, Tony mentioned 'baby steps' somewhere not so long ago - this would be one of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
for the two X criteria used so far, they were so rough and ready that there were many exceptions needed; the same would be the case with this. A new general CSd category is not a good idea; it will be more practical to adjust wording on existing ones. (G5 for example) . Similarly for 1990+, I would do it not as a speedy, but as a modification of the SNG, and say specifically that it over=rides GNG. At some point we would really have to deal with the primary obstacle to increasing notability standards, the GNG/SNG comfusion. But I do not think there will be consensus for it at this point.
What there willl be consensus for, is increasing restrictions on paid editors. Proposed wording changes,
1) on WP:COI, lede para: from "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it " to "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are required to disclose it "
2) WP:COI section 1.2, and throughout change all the "should" to must.
3) all new articles on commercial organizations founded after 1990 must go to AfC, and any one encountering one should move it there. This includes articles by confirmed editors. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I would support; possibly with a caveat "for companies launched after X year" -- anyone wanting create an article on a historic company would be able to do so. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support if it's a ban on entering articles, only if its a requirement to use Draft space / What we need to remember, is that at present we may be in a state of emergency, but the situation is getting better, not worse, because we now do have general awareness of the problem among WPedians.My own prefered place to work remains with individual articles, not wording of policy. oer the years, it's the only way I've had any success. The rewording sometimes comes later, once opinion has been affected by individual articles. Everyone who care needs to participate in NPP and AfD. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David, I think you hit the nail on the head here (as usual). In my experience, progress on Wikipedia is only achieved by building local consensus first and establishing something as common practice and standards. What we need to do here is to make people aware of the crisis we are facing with promotional editing, and get the people to care to participate in the two processes that most directly affect it: AfD and NPP. RfCs only work if consensus is preexisting. We have come a long way on this even in the last year, but more progress is needed. That only can occur if people who care take the time to work in these areas. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this were taken up, how would it affect new articles about noncommercial corporations or associations? You could use Oregon Psilocybin Society, which I created, as an example. Would it have had to go through AfC? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't characterise on Oregon Psilocybin Society right now because I haven't gone through all the sources, but at first blush it seems to have attracted enough attention for notability. However, non-profits are notorious for attempting to promote themselves through Wikipedia, and most of them are written by someone with a COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about this over the last couple days, and essentially what I came to is that "if having a Wikipedia article leads to an increase of money exchange, than it should be sent to AfC", which includes donations, so I'd vote, that yes Bri it would go to AfC. Not that it would have a problem getting approved, I just don't want to burden folks with determining if something is for/non-profit. Logically, that expands to BLPs as well, but I feel that CORP is a more pressing issue. Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk23:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that's a very elegant solution to a non-elegant problem. I mildly feel that 1990 is a bit too far back, but I trust your judgement over my own. Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk23:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
clearly sock or meatpuppet of NYUWireless, based on behavioral evidence and recreation of promotional articles, I blocked indefinitely -- other party's edits are stale for checkuser. I also deleted and protected NYU Wireless as G5, and recreated it as a protected redirect to its director. . DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.
Thank you for fixing the article on Wren Kitchens. I apologise for reverting your changes initially. I completely misinterpreted what you changed and I honestly don't know how I missed it. You've made the page much better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishGuy (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haworth Press 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. North America100009:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG thank-you for the thoughtful comment about /sandbox
I will try to incorporate the advice.
Can you give advice on the article on JHUBME. It is posted for being taken down due to conflict of interest.
Can it be rescued. It is factual. Overexhuberant new Chairman trying to follow Stanford Computer Science and Oxford Computer Science
both top ranked departments. Is it possible for editors like yourself to sharpen it up and remove individuals who are not noteable etc
given the history is all documented and BME at JHU is largely considered to have created this modern field of BIomedical discovery.
Thank-you in advance.
Mim.cis (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove the Prod tag, but I expect it will then be nominated for a discussion at AfD, and the consensus there will decide. There are two considerations: promotionalism, and notability , and either reason is sufficient for deletion. I can help with the promotionalism--at the present time it's not particularly outrageous--more a matter of tone than anything specific, and I've made what I think to be the necessary adjustments. Notability is a more difficulty question. We have no good standards for academic departments. but most submitted articles on them have been deleted, and I've almost always agreed with the decision. It's very difficult to write one without promotionalism unless the department is actually world-famous, and that's my personal standard, and the standard I argue for. It's relatively easy to decide this in the more general and longstanding fields, like for example physics. It's harder in the more specialized and newer ones, ones, like Biomedical Engineering. I cannot predict how the discussion will go.
the problem is to provide third party documentation of your statement "largely considered to have created this modern field" and each individual statement ones in the article, especially the ones already questioned with citation need tags. I point out the USNWR rankings are considered of rather dubious reliability here, certainly not as a measure of research importance. We include them because the public uses them.
Unless you can find material to document the statements, I do not think that the article will pass AfD. If you can, it probably will. If you provide them on the article talk page and let me know here, I will remove the tag. Otherwise there is no real point in trying in keep it. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you very much. I looked at several things. First, I appreciate that noteworthy is not an absolute metric.
I wanted to just share some thoughts on possible noteworthy measures indicating that Biomedical Engineering as a discipline is significant and within the field JHU BME is noteworthy. (i) Currently we have 8 faculty over 60, 12 faculty with h-index greater than 50, and 19 over 40. While h-index is not an absolute measure of noteworthiness, Wikipedia says and I am quoting "an outtsanding scientist has an h-index of 40, and a truely unique individual an h-index of 60". For comparison, I looked at Duke, Stanford and GTech in this manner, none have as many. GTech and Stanford have 5 greater than 50.(ii) We have 5 listed members of any of the National Academies. According to Wikipedia "Election into the National Academies is one of the highest honors in the scientific field. (iii) The size of our discipline is significant and of the scale of the departments of Biomedical Engineering are similar to other outstanding program which have wiki pages. For example Georgia Tech, Duke, UCSD and JHU have 40 tenure line faculty in Biomedical Engineering. (iv) A noteworthy measure of the importance of our undergraduate program, the acceptance rate of 7.8% into JHU BME is currently more competitive than CalTech and MIT based on U.S. News and World Report.
If there are other measures that Wikipedia uses of noteworthiness we would be happy to address. We agree that any statements that you feel are inappropriate because of inadequate 3rd party referencing should be taken down. At the time of our founding in 1962 there were no other departments. We are currently looking for 3rd party referencing to that effect. It seems appropriate that the statement "Johns is credited as ..." can be taken down until we find further referencing. We are proper the proper reference from U.S. News concerning continual ranking. Mim.cis (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for the purposes of wikipedia does not correspond to the way the word is used in the Real World--it can only be thought of as a term of art -- language used in a special way by those within a field. I am giving you advice about what will be needed to keep the article, which requires dealing with the artificial manner that is used here. I also have my own opinion, but the advice I give you is based on my experience of what actually happens, not what I think ought to happen.
Officially, the measure Wikipedia uses for determining notability is the WP:GNG, whether there are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. If you have such material the article will be kept, whether or not it would rationally make sense to have it in the encyclopedia. If you do not, it won't, again would rationally make sense to have it in the encyclopedia. The key words to pay attention to are substantial, independent, and reliable. To the extent that it will help influence how people consider the references, the best way of making the case for your deprtment is to focus not on present quality however high it may be, but historical significance, where it may be unique. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for these clarifications. I am slowly learning. I may have clunkily tried to remove the prod based on my understanding of correct procedure. I left comments on Bfpage talk since BFP was the individual who tagged it. I hope the page can stay up and be edited and improved. Thank-you in advance in whatever you decide.Mim.cis (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apparently intended to merge it to Society for Science & the Public but forgot to do so. In 2013 and until recently there have been an immense number of meritorious G13s to screen and I accumulating long lists of those Ineeded to rescue. I still intend to go back to the ones I can still identify. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
At the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident.
Behind this achievement are a technical advance (fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up.
The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations.
But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers.
Hi David,
I don't think this article meets the WP:G11 speedy deletion criterion, as it seems to me neutral enough in tone. Whether it meets the WP:GNG or any other of the notability policies and guidelines is another matter, of course.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts about housing reviews such as Barker Review of Housing Supply, and Draft:The_Lyons_Housing_Review? The majority of sources are primary with a scarcity of secondary RS. I can see where such reviews would serve a benefit as cited sources in a main article about a state, or region, or may possibly be beneficial as a List of housing reviews for a country or region. Atsme📞📧19:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see they're in the general class of what could be termed "policy papers". Like anything else, if there is substantial third party discussion of these or any other policy papers, or anything else, then they are notable. The content at them oment shows it more clearly for Lyons than for Barker--it seems clear enough for Lyons that I shall accept the draft. But I think the best use of this material is to support a more general article, not be an article itself. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:Log/Sausage 69 and the comparable logs for the editors that get created here. Do we generally do something about this kind of situation if none of the accounts has done any editing, or do we wait for disruption to start? Special:Log is a poor man's CU, I suppose (no question that they're related), but I thought maybe you'd be familiar with the procedure when chueckuser isn't needed. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
for vandalism, there's no really standard procedure--we do what is necessary. I blocked all 3, as "created as vandalism " -- just as you say, it's not worth checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday Cheer + a barnstar
The Happy Holiday Barnstar
How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC
G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.
Hi! So my article on Dave Sanders, the Columbine High School coach that died during the massacre was rejected, and the reason was "not memorial". I'm not sure what this means. I wrote details on his life (there's not many), and a quick summary of his death. There's no other way to write it and if every other victim got a wikipedia article, he certainly deserves one (as does Daniel Rohrborough!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevejuneau (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do not make articles on people whose only notability is having died in a disaster. I'm not sure I agree with that, and I've sometimes argued otherwise, but such has been the consensus. Two of the other victims only have articles, and in each case its because they have individually been the subjects of books ( and for one of them, songs) .But my decision is not final--another admin might accept it and it might conceivably be kept in an afd, and the decision is made by the community consensus in that afd discussion . Before you do that, try to find references providing substantial coverage about the individual in particular from third-party independent reliable sources--if you can find more and better material, there's abetter chance. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move
Hi DGG: Could you please move Judaism in Mexico to History of the Jews in Mexico as this needs the help of an admin. The article is almost all about the Jewish history of the Jews in Mexico and its heading should therefore follow the format of all the other articles about "History of the Jews in ____". Thanks so much for all your help. IZAK (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I appreciate the comments you added to your rejection of this article. My sense is that the problem was with the information about Camp's art career and radio work, so I have removed all mention of them.
My focus is strictly on her accomplishments as a poet. Furthermore, I have removed links to published interviews with the subject, since they amount to her talking about herself, rather than objective commentary.
As far as objective commentary, I can include links to additional reviews of her books, if that would help with the notability issue.
I'd appreciate any additional guidance you can offer to make this an acceptable article.
I was not primarily concerned with promotionalism , or with the declared conflict of interest As I said " Cannot be accepted until there are substantial third party independent critical studies." Whether routine book reviews , or reviews in local publications will count is uncertain and would have to be decided by the community in a discussion. Add what you hav and resubmit--someoneelse will review it. Please note that there is a real difference between being a finalist for a prize, and winning one. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.
The filters are now deployed as a default feature on all wikis on RecentChanges and RecentChangesLinked pages.
The filters are still available as a Beta feature on all wikis on Watchlists. Please try them!
LiveUpdates have been deployed as a default feature for all wikis.
On wikis using Extension:Translate, translated messages can now be filtered. System messages can be filtered as well, on all wikis. [8]
"View new changes since $1" link is now more prominent, to invite users to use that native feature to update the list of results. [9]
Pagination and time period selectors are now combined and located on the right on left-to-right wikis. [10]
When a user wanted to click outside of the filter menu to close it, it was possible to click on "revert" link by accident. It is not possible anymore. [11]
It is now possible to filter the following events using the Tags menu: Making a page a redirect, Changing redirect target, Changing an existing redirect into a non-redirect, Blanking of the page, Removing more than 90% of a page content, Rolling back an edit. [12]
Some design improvements have been done to Related Changes page to integrate the new filters. [13]
"Save current filter settings" menu and legend overlapped the results. This is now fixed. [14]
Some small design improvements have been done. [15]
Now Content Translation prevents source and target language to be set to same language. [16]
The dialog for selecting article to translate is standardized. It introduces a new component that is used for the selected page on both the "New translation" dialog and the "Suggested pages" list. [17]
More space is given to the language filter, to increase responsiveness and show more language names without truncation. [18]
While searching for a new page to translate, duplicates are not shown anymore for user search input. [19]
Various PHP warnings and JavaScript errors have been fixed. [20][21]
How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas00:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G13 Error rate?
Hello DGG. I saw your comment at WT:CSD regarding error rates on G13 nominations, and I was wondering what kinds of errors you were referring to. Do you mean technical errors in not meeting G13 criteria (e.g. pages that actually have been edited within the last six months)? Or do you mean pages that are potentially worthwhile and ought to be allowed more time to work?--Mojo Hand(talk)03:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean results which are clearly wrong according to our current standards. and that includes- both the printed guidelines and the accepted standards of interpretation. No policy or guideline, however absolute it sounds, provides an automatic answer for all situations. Every administrative action at WP relies upon following consensus--in the case of deleting at speedy, the implied consensus of what other admins would reasonably do. If you examine WP:CSD, you will find each criteria has a qualifying word, such "credible" "unquestionably" "unsalvageable" "good faith" essentially", "implausible" and the like. There is an accepted range of interpretations for all of these, and a variety of accepted exemptions or inclusions in practice that are not specifically written. My % does not however include items that do fall under the accepted interpretation, but where I wish it were otherwise. Nor does it include instances where another admin interpreted it differently than I, but both of us are within the accepted range of interpretation. And it should be noted that for many of these, the accepted practice changes with time in one direction or another. Almost always in WP, the written rules are revised after the practice has changed. Furthermore, specific and general policies can contradict each other--for example, the details at CSD and the general rules at NOT are both policy, but can be harmonized in many different ways--some are within the accepted limits, some are stretching things, some are entirely unreasonable abut attempted nonetheless. Even more broadly, our fundamental WP:IAR could be interpreted to permit anything, but in practice is used also within accepted limits.
You will notice I'm not directly addressing the point you have in mind, G13--this is a case where the standards have apparently been changing. I think it is now accepted that it does not apply to material that would just as it is pass AfC; it might possibly exempt also material that with reasonable improvements would meet AfC, but I wouldn't say that someone was wrong who thought otherwise.
for clarity, I should add: When I give people advice about an article, I try to make certain my advice follows very conservatively the clearly accepted standard--I would consideranything else irresponsible. When I argue for doing something, that's different, and I sometimes do argue for adjusting the interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. I generally tread lightly with G13s and only deleted the easy and fairly obvious ones. So, I was curious about the thought process of those who look at the harder candidates.--Mojo Hand(talk)15:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request for guidance regarding creation of an article titled 'Assent (philosophy)' or 'Assent (research)'
Dear Sir,
Greetings!
When the legal age is not matching to give consent, assent is obtained in research. This is an important concept, hence an article can be created in my opinion. May I request you to kindly guide further?
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, but 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]
I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018.
Your talk page is currently 336,914 bytes long. Please archive most of it, in smaller chunks, and consider setting up a bot to do so on a regular basis (I can do that for you if you wish). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
my current talk p is 1/3 the length it was a month ago, and I have received comments that I should return some of the material I removed. Expect it at 450. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, Neddy wishes everybody a very merry Xmas (suggestions of direct ancestory with one of the eyewitnesses to the happy event have, so far, proved unfounded)Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you of notability , and they are both entirely promotional to the extent they could not be fixed without total rewriting, and I therefore tagged them for G11. There was once a time when I would have done that total rewriting for S.P., but no longer even for academics. There are too many undeclared paid editors soliciting them and we need to do what we can to put an end to it. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was the author of the above article. The article was recommended for speedy deletion by Cwmhiraeth who thought it may have been promotional rather than encyclopaedic in nature. He asked for confirmation from me if there was a conflict of interests in my creation of the page in that I was either directly or indirectly compensated for my edits: The answer to that question is a categorical no: I was not compensated directly or indirectly, and the page was in no way a form of paid advocacy. I have not and do not expect to receive any compensation for the edits/contributions. I can also confirm that I have no financial interest in the creation of the page. He has accepted my follow-up and apologized that his suspicions were wrong.
Unfortunately, prior to my replying to Cwmhiraeth and providing the response sought, it seems as though the article was already deleted (less than 24 hours after it was recommended for deletion).
I Would like to request that the article is reviewed again and reinstated please, and I wonder if you could be so kind as to assist me with that. I would request that you to review the contributions against my background of confirming no direct or indirect compensation (which, to be fair to you, was not available at the time of deletion) and you will see I used no emotive or positive adjectives in the article whatsoever. I was also very careful indeed to ensure the contributions/edits I made had no 'selling messages' and were specifically not promotional, but strictly categorically and only factual in nature. Against that background, I was also very careful indeed to ensure each of the contributions/edits and the facts contained therein were referenced to legitimate external sources (I believe over 50 of them). I also noticed that other users had added internal references to the subject of the page (which are now orphan links on those connecting pages).
I deleted it because I myself think it was an advertisement, of the sort that almost always represents a conflict of interest of some sort, though not necessarily a paid conflict of interest.
Among other factors: The list of cases is what lawyers typically put in their advertisements. All but one of his books are found in only 1 2 or 3 libraries, and a effort was made to insert them as references in places where they were not needed, or where very much more accesible references exist)(an earlier attempt, but presumably related). The individual items by
Dickens he located are given as if they were major discoveries. The summary of his qualification in the lede and the infobox was excessive. If you wantto try again, do it in Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG Thanks for taking the time to give your input on the issues that needed fixing on the article, it is much appreciated. I'll give it another shot and make the revisions you suggested. Is there any way I can tag you on here (if that is the correct procedure) to alert you to the article once I have re-done it so you could give me any pointers so I can make sure it is right this time and doesn't fall foul of the same issues? I'd much rather work under your supervision on it so I don't risk wasting all that work again - If that's okay with you? Many thanks! Siolio(talk)
Hi DGG, I'm writing regarding Articles_for_deletion/Lily_Jay. You mentioned that every Inc article may have to be checked in order to remove Inc profiles. I think there's no reason to be worried, as Inc Profiles are meant for companies to have their standalone business profiles like this [26] or [27], similar to Bloomberg company profiles. Having an Inc Verified profile for $30/year does not give them the ability to publish and contribute on the Inc magazine itself.
Taking that into account, I'm trying to understand for myself what exactly made you think that this [28] Inc article was published by an Inc Profile?
Moreover, why do you consider Gold Coast Bulletin and Inc Magazine as unreliable? Do they fall into the category of self-published articles or press releases?
Bloomberg profiles are not reliable for notability either, just for verifying the basic facts about the company or individual. As for Inc Profiles. , to quote from their web site "we independently confirm that businesses are operational, websites are functional, social media links and phone lines work, content is appropriate and no obvious red flags exist. Inc. Verified Profiles are meant to save purchasers a little time by showcasing businesses that are part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. They are not an endorsement of products or services, nor a guarantee of quality." If I open a grocery store, once I've got my social media set up, I'd be qualified. They could be used for the above facts, and nothing more--all other content in them is written by the firm or its PR agency.
You are correct that this is not a profile. It would be more accurately classed as a press release. The give-away was the author, " By Wanda Thibodeaux
Copywriter, TakingDictation.com", and the expected line at the bottom: "The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com." DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join us at Ace Hotel for Wikipedia Day NYC 2018, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference as part of the project's global 16th birthday festivities. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with keynotes, plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions.
And there will be cake.
We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.
Ya, there was something odd about this Hey you yeah you! account, maybe the username but they always struck me as not-so-new. Incidentally, I never thought that it could be the same person as SwisterTwister, their AfD arguments struck me as fairly different. And now I wonder how many AfDs were tainted by this socking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there were very many at AfD where the ST vote made the difference, because their arguments were somewhat incoherent at times. And I don't think that if the problem is that he was the one who raised the argument for deletion, there was no deletion unless other people said similarly--but those do have to be checked. But what we need to check first AfDs where more than one of them appeared. BTW, I recall an analogous instance in the inclusionist direction Useer:A Nobody, better known as User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit more concerned about quorum. Many AfDs attract very few votes (I use 3 votes nominator included as my cutoff, and that is cutting it fine) and I saw Hey you yeah you! in several such bare-minimum AfDs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the RfC earlier this year that updated NOQUORUM, the default here is to treat as an expired PROD, so it shouldn't be an issue. If someone raises it to you in an AfD where there were minimal votes, I would just restore at your discretion like if you had soft-deleted it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete with one additional delete argument if it's unopposed, and the reason for deletion is obvious. But I agree there may be some that need to be revisited. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
It would be even better if we had a contest on how many articles were reviewed carefully and correctly. Or even a special prize for the highest % of good reviews. Speaking for myself, I am going to continue to look carefully at anyone with more than 30 at as stretch. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.
Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)