I dream of horses I consider it good enough for mainspace; I think it has adequate sourcing for notability to pass AfD, and being likely to pass AfD is the criterion for accepting. I therefore accepted it, If you disagree, the next step is AfD, and we will find out what the consensus is. . DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I can be overly cautious as to what should be/remain in mainspace, so it makes sense to have some checks and balances. 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) @ 09:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
Your comments on the Force theory draft are well taken. Is there some way I can find other people who would want to work on the article? I won't have much time to do so for the foreseeable future. Themane2 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "No Nazis" essay
Hello DGG,
It's me again. I'm the same IP editor who was commenting in this discussion. Could you please take a look at this? [1][2] There seems to be an attempt to shut down discussion about this issue, and I think it needs to be discussed.
Re Mr JT Patten, can you please explain why it appears promotional? And what can be done to improve the page? He is one of the more highly respected individuals in US intelligence strategy, noted in the publication references and co authorship to those currently on Wiki pages. There was also mention of his being self-published by you. He has been published by Kensington through Penguin Books, which is also referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonovanBlack6 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your user talk p, where I have explained the extensive promotionalism , the lack of notability , and the apparent undeclaredWO:COI. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About: Cigniti
Hi DGG,
You wrote at [[3]]:
I have edited the article, incorporated all your inputs. Could you please review the page and let me know. I have ensured everything neutral.
--Subhendupattnaik (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG,
You declined my first submission of the Lee McClure article on Feb 26. I found your objections clear, and I've revised the article to attempt to address them. Your comments were broad, not addressing particular sections much less sentences - probably the draft erred too pervasively to merit that.
I wonder if you would briefly look over the new draft, and at least indicate if any passages are still problematic. I realize I can't really ask you to perform a "pre-review", but it would be helpful to see if I understood the scope of your objections.
At the top of my list of worries: the 2nd and 3rd to last paragraphs of the "Opposition" section, which recount dialogs that really occurred, and which more than one person corroborates, but for which there's no published reference. I also wonder if the amount of detail in certain sections could be deemed excessive.
It's a great anecdote, but WP relies upon sources that anyone can verify. And yes, the amount of personal detail is excessive, especially considering that that you cannot include based on personal knowledge.
I am concerned also about a detailed listing of works that have not been publicly performed or published, and a discography of privately produced recordings. Yes, such music can conceivably be important, but you'd have to show it. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NPR Newsletter No.17
Hello DGG,
News
The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
Discussions of interest
Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
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.
Organized by Asia Art Archive in America]and Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs of the New York Public Library and in collaboration with Asia Art Archive in Hong Kong, the Art+Feminism: Wikipedia Edit-a-thon on Women in Art in Asia helps participants edit Wikipedia to create and improve articles about women artists and practitioners in and from Asia, including architects, designers, filmmakers, curators, and art historians. Books and research materials—as well as refreshments—will be provided.
I was hoping you might consider tweaking your proposal offered in the X5 discussions and submitting to WT:DEL since a bit of an amorphous discussion on the issue has started and I think your proposal might help bring some structure and a useful idea to it. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
University of Southern Maine - edits needed - DGG - thanks!!
Hi DGG:
You recently communicated with a member of our university about our Wiki page, and we have some serious edits needed, and you offered to help us.
Our greater University of Southern Maine community has expressed great concern (from current students, to alumni, to faculty and administrators, to community supporters) that our Wiki page does not at all reflect the university as it is in 2019, and it's missing information/facts about our programs, campuses etc. in addition to needing to be updated with current information. And the current page's History section is not only out of date, but it's highly unbalanced.
So our team has taken time to go through and edit (with cited sources) much of what’s occurred since the period in 2014 when yes, the university did go through budget crises and staff/faculty layoffs. We’re not asking for that to be removed from the page, but we do request that it be set in context as past history and edited to not take up three pages of content (when other universities with much graver controversies such as Michigan state have only a few paragraphs on their pages). We understand Wiki is not a PR page, so we’ve kept it to facts that anyone can look up. And information that people researching the university would want to know about it.
So if you can, please review this document, and if it meets with your approval, please add the text from this document to edit the University of Southern Maine's Wiki page -- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dA5IL0VP5wzTsgjfHfSbS9Vc6doVUVQCEgvVgcuonj4/edit?usp=sharing -- we’d greatly appreciate it. Please let me know any timeline for getting the changes made, and please contact me (or Alan Bennett at USM with whom you communicated earlier) for anything else we can do on our end.
You are certainly correct that the negative material in the article is greatly overemphasized and given undue prominence. I shall deal with that in the next few days; I must apologize that i did not get to this sooner. (And I will subsequently try to update the article a little). But the reason we strongly discourage those associated with an institution to write about it, is not just that they will introduce unjustified praise, and remove justified but negative material, but they will fail to understand what shows importance or even quality from the perspective of an encyclopedia . Though you recognize that WP is not a place for PR, the suggested additions include phrases like
"USM LAC is committed to being a national leader in interdisciplinary education, serving as a resource for the community, providing an educational experience for its students through degree programs that are responsive to changing cultural and workplace demands and that are available to a non-traditional and diverse student body"
"offers a wide variety of majors and programs that aim to prepare students for further study and/or their careers."
"Students develop thoughts and positions on complex, multi-faceted issues by considering diverse perspectives and conflicting-yet-plausible ideas. "
"Support faculty and staff commitment to excellence in scholarly accomplishments regionally, nationally and internationally."
This is entirely jargon, with trite catch phrases that have been overused to the point of meaningless, phrases that every educational organization in the world likes to use about itself, and that nobody rational pays the least attention to. Its at least intended as straight undocumented praise; whether the actual effect of writing such material is to reflect positively on the institution is another matter. The most absurd of it is the attempt to show progress:
"Like a Maine spring USM is slowly and beautifully emerging from a dark winter,” said [the] incoming President ... “I am honored to be asked to serve at one of New England’s best universities during this powerful transition" DGG ( talk ) 07:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DGG - your response, albeit perhaps a bit harsh, is actually greatly appreciated. By all means, ignore anything that smacks of PR hyperbole. Not being experienced Wiki editors, we were pulling things from newspaper articles and our own website to use at least as a jumping off point (mea culpa -- yes, our current President waxed poetic in the local newspaper - quite over the top, as noted)... I'm not being sarcastic when I say thanks for the eye-opening information about how this works! So please feel free to use any facts that appear in the document that can be updated/included or use them for your own research (some of the programs on the current Wiki page, are no longer even programs we offer at USM, and some things that really should be included or listed more prominently, aren't on there right now). Provable, legit progress has been made at USM, and we hope the page can reflect that. Also, is the history of how someone was hired, really that important to include? That section just seems a bit off kilter and the bulk of the history section, seems like the opposite of PR hyperbole, it looks like someone with a negative agenda had at the site, which we hope could be balanced by accurate current information. Many thanks for your assistance here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVPortland (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, could you take a quick look at this guy and tell me if you think he might meet WP:NPROF? I'm not sure he does, but I'm the first to admit I'm not the best basically useless at judging academic notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk)16:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
borderline. One edited book, and one coauthored vol in a well known general series. There are also some papers. Anthropology and especially archeology are very tricky to judge, in the absence of holding a major position, , because the literature is extremely specialized. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok. I might take it to AfD to get broader opinions; I'll ping you if I do. I appreciate you looking at it for me! ♠PMC♠ (talk)04:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Daisy Tanwani, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: per WP:CSD, I'm assuming that Ritchie333 also checked (and decided against) whether other criteria apply when he declined the G11. Thank you. SoWhy11:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got a second opinion from Megalibrarygirl and the conclusion is while it didn't seem possible to write an article at this time (implying that AfD would be reasonable) it didn't seem to meet the criteria of CSD. In this specific case, an additional concern was that Indian women tend to bring up less sources from a web search than subjects in the west. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that that local papers are available from the US, but not India. However, when they get national coverage, that might be quite sufficient, if the coverage were independent instead of PR. The problem for the ones we see here is the irresponsibility of many Indian sources. (and many US etc. sources as well, of course, but there's more likely to be something real) DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SYSTEMATICBIAS does not remotely apply for any Indian (woman) CEO, operating from a posh business area, in the 21st century. Just no. And, it's quite untrue that local Indian papers are not available over web; every major vernacular daily has an online presence and their archives date back at-least to the 2000s. Some even have digitized stuff till the 1960s.
That being said, you cannot view local newspaper articles of the 1800s over web and that's a hindrance to ours' judging notability of characters of those time spans. There is a major ongoing project to digitize old newspapers (whose publishers have shut their shop, long back) but it's way too slow and fund-crunched. Still, archives of yester-century's leading vernacular newspapers like Amrita Bazar Patrika, Jugantar et al are slowly made available for free viewing and searching.∯WBGconverse19:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of GiveBack GiveAway, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: currently at AFD with ATD suggestions, so clearly not uncontroversial enough for speedy deletion. Thank you. SoWhy11:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Astral Airways, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: as the parent company of AirSWIFT and subsidiary of Ayala Corporation, significance is indicated (at the very least, it can be merged to either article per WP:ATD). Thank you. SoWhy11:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're having a bad day of it. :-/ Just remember that unless deletion is vitally important (which is basically G3, G10 and G12) it never hurts to defer to PROD or AfD. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I consider keeping advertisements out of the encyclopedia almost equally impt. The key thing is that I do not delete singlehanded --except G3/ G10 --so there is always review. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
Thank you for reviewing my page (Speaker of the Ethiopian House of Peoples Representatives).
The creator has denied being paid to write the article ([4], [5]) but I found off-wiki evidence that shows they are employed by this company and another that they have created a draft for. To avoid running afoul of WP:OUTING, could I email you a link? --Drm310🍁 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, i believe this guy worth for a pages in wikipedia.. Maybe i havent add enough sources yet.. I would add more soon. Thanks for viewing and advises.. --Kungkang (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This was far from optimal, but it wasn't an ad. The machine is historically important, but largely superseded by postwar technological advances; I'm not sure anyone's manufacturing them any more, much less selling them. DS (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DS, you are of course correct--the problem is the inflexibility of the built-in templates --I should have used a custom one to say "written as if it were an ad, not an encyclopedia article" .We used to be able to use a standard template, but modify it; , but it seems the function is now lost--I used it extensively. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation of a problematic article
No idea what you were thinking when you created Jean-Claude Jitrois (April Fool's?), but not only did you write a totally unattributed translation of a French Wikipedia article, which is not allowed and a copyright violation; but you also decided to copy an article with multiple tags indicating that it was considered a problematic article on frwiki. Why would you knowingly add an article that reads like an ad to enwiki? The sources often don't support the statements (e.g. "Jean-Claude Jitrois becomes then Jitrois : The stretch leather" is sourced to [6], where the only mention of Jitrois is "Le Combat Leggings de Jean-Claude Jitrois, moulant mais pas trop, entre rock et biker avec ses jeux de Zip asymétriques." Ending the article with the "sentence" " E [11]. " also shows a lot of care. If it hadn't been a copyvio, I would have moved it to draftspace. As it stood, I just deleted it. Fram (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, despite what the history might seem to show, I neither created it or translated it. Rather,
I found it among the new pages for review at 1:50 or so April 1, where it had been moved from draft space by its author Vichnt, on March 18 [7] leaving an edit summary "translation in english of the french wikipedia page : Jean-Claude Jitrois ", which is not ideal attribution, but is the minimal attribution according to the lede of WP:Copying within Wikipedia
I immediately added an "advertising" tag at 1:54 April 1, [8] , and considered what to do with the article. My first thought was indeed G11, and I too saw the tags on the French article.
I then read it more carefully, and thought that he was in fact possibly notable: I noted a well- sourced claim to Officer of the Legion d'honnour [9], awarded to Jean-Claude Jitrois as a designer. In addition, he had apparently written books as "Jean Claud Costa" with the source give as a link to the BnF [10], where I found rather to my surprise that they were published by Presses universitaires de France and that "psychomotricité " is a respectable subject. (This of course leaves open the possibility that they are not in fact the same people). I therefore decided the article was worth fixing.
Since the text was an obvious machine translation, contained promotional name-dropping, and needed extensive format and other cleanups, I did it, as I normally do, in stages.
He quite properly did not leave a redirect, but my working version was still open as an Article.
I saved it at 4:38, after getting about 3/4 of the way. I was perfectly aware it needed further work--the other references needed checking which would include removing the bad ones., the list of his books and description of his pre-fashion career needed clearer presentation, the material on the Metropolitan Museum show needed to be clarified, there were various infelicities of expression and proofread for such thingsas stray characters from the moves deletions, I needed to check that the claimed collaborations with the notable artists was real, I needed to provide the full attribution for the translation, & especially I needed to verify that he did indeed create stretch leather which seems to be implied in the article. (and I needed to consider if I wanted to go back and at least partially fix the worst promotionalism in the French WP. I very rarely do--I am aware of my inadequate skill with their conventions, but deletion of the worst material is easy enough.
Although I usually work later than 4:38 UTC, I exceptionally went to bed early (for me). I should have added an underconstruction tag, but I fell asleep first. I apologize for that.
Because the earlier history had been moved, the minimally adequate translation attribution was no longer there, but I did not see that. I generally do not go back to the history after I save.
So basically it is a complicated edit conflict. You didn't check the full history either, or you would have seen there was a draft already. (You would of course have seen it had you moved the article to draft)
I intend to make the corrections on the draft, and move it back. You can then choose between AfD or an apology to me. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You kept a new page open in your browser for more than 2 1/2 hours, and then saved it without noticing whether anything had been done to it in the mean time, with an edit summary which reads like "copied"? Please hold your breath waiting for that apology... Fram (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally there is no need to check , because the system finds conflicts--the page disappearing in the meantime is a little unusual. The edit summary was "cpyed" , the usual abbreviation for " oopyedit.," which is what I did. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
