User talk:DGG/Archive 149 Jun. 2019

                                       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

=

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]

Hello David,

Thank you for your response. I am glad that I was able to do a decent job on my first article on Wikipedia. If I may ask, by when can I expect it to enter article space? PadmashreeGhangale (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

This [1] 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


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

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

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]
Ok, thanks. I did not think there would be a problem with the references in general, the ones I used are from software review pages that I have seen that were used in other articles of the same type. Anyway, I did not publish the article directly because I had some doubts. Thanks!--BelleBenny (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DC Solar - a blast from the past

Thought this might interest you. Your XFD from November 2017. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DC_Solar Recent news [[2]] I'm halfway tempted to ask for WP:REFUND to add this new info - not sure how much decent info there was before. Cheers! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton |this does make it more interesting. About 3/4 of the prior article is devoted to the firm's sponsorship of motor sports, in particular of Brennan Poole, and a reference to their bankruptcy is in the article on him. From the edit history etc, the intent seems to have been to support an article on Poole, not on the company. I'm restoring to draft space, as Draft:DC_Solar for it might be notable, and the info on Poole in the article can be minimizedas duplicative of the bio article. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shalva Weil

Without a doubt she is an interesting and notable person. But looking at its history, it was started by someone with the username ‎Yonata05 whose edits were only to her article or to promote her, a major edit[3] by a Shailevi8, and now heavily by someone with the name Yoniher, too close to Yonata05 to make me comfortable, and who is also only here to promote her. Minor point, there are a number of links to femicide.net and I can't get archive.org to retrieve them - it looks as though they are archived but I can't load them. I also think this is overkill. 16:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

thanks for letting me know. I've left appropriate messages, and am re-editing. Thisis the second time I will have done this for the article; I doubt I will have patience for a third. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I don't blame you. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:27:38, 3 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Reutsapsiuol


Hi, I created this draft because MM is one of the only recepient of William B. Coley Award from the past 10 years who does not have a page. I thought it would fulfill the WP:PROF #2 - The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level-. Reutsapsiuol (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reutsapsiuol (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is likely to be considered notable, but if you submit this in so incomplete a form, it's probable it will be nominated by someone else for deletion. The result of such discussions are unpredictable. Toavoid it, add some more information. In particular:
  1. Place of birth, and sequence of degrees with dates i-- in the main article, not just the infobox.
  2. Positions held, with dates (and reference--try to get this from her university page)
  3. Any other awards
  4. A list of her 4 or 5 most cited papers--Google Scholar is a good place for find this. Link to them as references.

Then let me know, and I'll accept it. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the information requested. Thanks. Reutsapsiuol (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Beall's List

Was this intended to be on someone's talk page rather than that of an article? IntoThinAir (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it's an automatic notice. I didn't know this was being done for redirects. The MfD tag is on the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be vandalism at [[4]], a joke about one of her ancestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.59.52 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rescue

Hello, again,

Thanks for the rescue of Leonor Antunes! I don't know what happened with the other helpful librarian editor-- probably just real life got in the way. Anyhow, I appreciate your help. Cheers! --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:03:58, 6 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Caldo de Gallina


Dear DGG:

I'm puzzled why the Deanna Morse submission hasn't been accepted.

She is a well-respected member of the animation / experimental film community.

Her work is in the following collections:

  • Australian National Film Library, Sydney, Australia
  • ASIFA-Italy Animation Archive, Turin, Italy
  • Calgary Board of Education, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • Cinematheque Quebecoise, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  • George Eastman House, Rochester, NY
  • Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY
  • New York Public Library, New York, NY
  • Seattle Public Library, Seattle, WA
  • Sinking Creek Film Study Collection, Greeneville, TN
  • South Carolina Arts Commission, Columbia, SC
  • South Carolina Board of Education, Columbia, SC

She has judged Film Festival submissions around the world as well as in the United States.

Finally, several of her peers with similar or less of a film portfolio are on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecelia_Condit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gatten

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Klahr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janie_Geiser

Could you please reconsider your earlier decline? Deanna deserves to be noted as a significant filmmaker, as her fellow filmmakers and appreciative audience would agree.

Thank you for your reconsideration.

Caldo de Gallina (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

first step is to indicate just which of her works are in which collections. The acceptable sources for these are the catalog or other publications of the selections. Then addthe sequence of her positions at thevarious universities, with dates. As this is a biography of a living person, every specific statment needs a third party reference. Add all this to the article, and let me know. Make sure your references are in the proper format, as shown by WP:REFBEGIN. Remove minor material, such as talks she may have given , or exhibts whereshe has been one of the judges. Some of the other articles you mention have similar problems, and they will need to be attended to.
But much more important, have you any conflict of interest with her, or with the various unrelated companies and people you have been writing about? If so, see WP:COI, and make the necessary declarations of conflict of interest. In particular, if applicable, see WP:PAID, and make the full detailed acknowledgements that are required. . DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality rating for created article Combat effectiveness

Hi DGG,

I'm currently a student studying at the University of Sydney and wrote the page Combat effectiveness for a course. You accepted the article for creation recently and I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on why you rated it as C class? Any comments would be greatly helpful and appreciated as I'm still a learner of Wikipedia.

Thanks a lot. Nilasor (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding additional resources to article Draft:Martin_Spano

Hi DGG, I added additional resources to the draft and also extended the article. Please review the article.

Thanks. Martanitra (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JRI

Thank you very much for improving and reviewing the Journal of Risk and Insurance page. AGF (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Please Reconsider

I am new to Wikipedia and wish to better understand your decision to decline to publish my submission on Stephen Noble Smith. You say the citations do not indicate significant coverage in published, reliable, secondary sources; yet I cited the New York Times, the Intercept, the Charleston (WV) Gazette, the Martinsburg (WV) Journal and West Virginia Living Magazine. These are not "passing mentions," but profiles and/or articles on the campaign. I do cite Smith's book for a biographical detail, bur the book is not about the campaign, it's about community organizing. I understand neutral voice -- I was for many years a senior editor at Time - Life Books -- and with the possible exception of the last graph, which was added by others, thought I had achieved it. If I dropped the last graph and resubmitted, would you reconsider? It was my intention top update the page as the campaign progresses, including any criticism and negative developments. If you look at the citations, you will see that there has not been any so far. I think that if you actually look at this man's record of service and achievements as a community organizer, you will reconsider the opinion that he would only become "notable" if he wins this election. Thank you for your consideration. Tom A Lewis (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

urgent help needed with my Wiki page - query

Dear DDG:

I need help with my Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michael_Cummings

I myself did not create the article. In 2010 or so, a librarian in a West Virginia public school did. She is deceased. Since, editors of journals having published my short stories and a former literary agent added to the page.

Recently, I made changes to the page, specifically uploading two photos of my book covers. But I did not follow protocol. Tags at the top of the page appeared, one after another, each worse. I myself have not touched the actual article since this incident started six weeks ago, but have instead remained markedly earnest and cooperative and forthcoming on the User Talk page. On my USER TALK, page you will see extensive dialogue between me and who seems to be only Wiki editor involved "Bonadea." She's well-informed and reasonable.

A few weeks back, she redrafted the page to sound encyclopedic, but she removed too much, I think. I had thought at the time, she was ready to remove the tags. Not so. She still feels the page is "autobiographical," even though I have dug up many links to reliable sources for her. Today, she's less and less available to help, as she is a teacher with a heavy class load.

I so much want the page to exist at its best. It would make me very proud, and I honestly feel who I am as a writer and what accomplishments I have made are of note. But the paragraphs about my article become scant as the descend, and the entire page is lacking my most important accomplishments. Again, I have available all links to the entirety of my USER TALK page.

My first novel won The Paterson Prize for Books for Young People 2009 (Grade 7-12), with a link to a reliable source. This a great award. But it is not listed. I want acknowledgement of my receiving an Honorable Mention in The Best American Short Stories 2007, again a great accomplishment, with a link available. I want acknowledgement being nominated for The Pushcart Prize - a fabulous achievement not listed.

I want all my 75 plus published short stories listed, not just a handful as shown on my page. All stories are reputably published is good university journals and commercial magazines. I want them presented in columns and set off my the lines of a box around them, as I seen on many sites. I'v spent thirty years of my life - every day devoted - to becoming a writer of accomplishment. I sacrificed income and the great life experience of having a family I could support.

A few questions:

How quickly can you get to work on the Wiki page?

Do other editors get involved with you?

Will you willingly communicate with me here on your email page, rather on the USER TALK for all the world to see. I think "Bonadea" would prefer not seeing my comments, as I am the subject of the article, and would prefer working only with a professional Wiki editor.

I look forward to a prompt reply.

Thank you very much. LankyKeller (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You want a prompt reply, so perhaps you would like one while DGG is unavailable.
Bonadea wrote to you:
We are all volunteers. None of us expects any other editor to work on any particular article out of the five million articles, or however many there are now. [...] [Y]ou cannot expect volunteers at this encyclopaedia to prioritise the article about you, except to remove material that violates Wikipedia policies.
You ask DGG: "How quickly can you get to work on the Wiki page?" I suggest that what Bonadea wrote about us volunteers in general applies to DGG as well. Yes, DGG has professional expertise, but here he contributes as a volunteer.
I haven't read all that Bonadea has written to you, but what I have read of it includes excellent advice. Please read, digest, and follow this advice. And if you still want a list of your 75 short stories (and so forth), feel free to create your own website and present it there. -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I've looked at the material Bonadea (talk · contribs) is an excellent editor, with about the same experience that I have. Neither she nor I are professional editors.: there are in fact no profesional authorized editors, though there are a few people who edit for pay, most of them very incompetently and often in violation of our rules. We are just experienced editors who do tour work here as volunteers, for the sake of building a free encycopedia and the satisfaction of helping other people learn how to do it.
As for the tags: The article as it is seems generally appropriate. I think it does meets the notability standards: 2 novels and a vol of short stories, local university presses, which do publish fiction especially regional from good local authors, in addition to purely academic work. I'm probably willing to move the tag after I do a little checking. But either the autobio tag or the connected contributor tag will have to remain.-- it seems the autobio tag is most appropriate: readers have a right to know when the subject of an article had substantial input into writing the contents.
As for photos: by our rules we cannot include photos of the covers of your books in an article about you. . We can include a portrait, but only if you own the copyright to it, but the copyright of a photo belongs to whoever took the photo, not the subject, unless they have formally transferred the copyright to the subject. Professional portrait photographers usually do not do that. These are basic rules here, and nothing I or you do can change them.
As for content: A list of all your stories is not appropriate, unless you become truly famous, not just notable. If any individual story has won a prize, and there is a third party reliable reference to that, it can be mentioned: Best American Short Stories counts as such, if your story was actually included, not just received an honorable mention but not included. Being nominated for the Pushcart prize is not sufficient--from our article, over 216,000 writers have been nominated; only 2,000, 1%, have been included. The Patterson Prize does not seem to have an article here, but it can be included if there's a good third party source. . I'll take a look to see if it meets the requirements to have an article on it, which is our standard for being a notable prize. Good 3rd party sources for these purposes include some authoritative story about who has won the prize, not just an mention of it in a bio account that is ultimately derived only from your statement.
As for your teaching--if you have held a n actual tenture-track professorship it's importnat, but not if it's just an adjunct in a writingcourse. Most professional writers have done that some time or other.
Please note that this is an encyclopedia , based on what is publishedin references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. We are not responsible for judging merit. The people who give major prizes do that.
As for notability: whether the tag is on or not does not matter. Any editor here can challenge the notability , and there will be a group discussion, and the consensus at that discussion will prevail. The result of such a discussion is likerly to be negative if the article is more excessively detailed than the degree of importance warrants. If is also very likely to be negative if you try too hard to defend it. I'm not saying what ought to happen , but giving you my honest opinion of what would actually happen, based on my experience with many thousands of these discussions. I leave further work on this to Bonadea. (talk · contribs). DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC) `[reply]


Growth team updates #8

Review of Draft Article Parks On The Air (POTA)

Hello DGG, There are a couple points I wish to discuss with you about Draft:Parks On The Air (POTA). First, this is modeled after the current article Summits on the Air. Secondly, I realize that there's not a lot of participation from those in my group to update this article yet, however I was wondering if we could put the {{Stub}} reference in it so that it can be published and then expanded on later? I do believe this article has merit and is WP:N. Another thing maybe is to just put in the reference that it's one of the 'Articles to be expanded'? Please advise. Thanks, Zul32 (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider

My article was recently rejected for "Basically an advertisement," but it's not entirely clear why. What are the specific sections that are to blame? All of the content references verifiable sources from what I can tell, and it's written in a neutral tone from information found on the cited sources.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripledigitmail (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving articles to Draftspace

This is not a helpful activity. You are harming the encyclopedia and irritating veteran editors by doing this. There is minimal harm in allowing in-progress new articles to be worked on in the main article space. In some cases you have broken active links by moving existing articles from mainspace into draftspace. I don't know why this policy even exists — Wikipedia is NOT PAPER. It does not matter if there are articles that are less than notable, so long as they are eventually deleted or (preferably) improved. Please stop doing this. It is anti-social behavior and discourages contribution. I've looked over your contribution history and (at least recently) is seems to mostly consist of undoing the efforts of other editors. This must stop. --Wclark (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT CONFLICTED:
I'm sorry — this isn't your fault. You're following policy. It's the policy that's at fault, here. There's no good reason to ever delete articles, in my opinion. They don't harm anything by existing. Who cares if people write overly-positive vanity articles about private businesses, as long as they're properly sourced and halfway decent? Let the spammers create articles to their heart's content... we just need to be diligent about how we link to them. If something is legitimately mentioned in some article, I'd expect there to be an article on it. Worry about how facts are cited in existing articles, not which ones merely exist. Deleting/Renaming/Needlessly-screwing-with articles that somebody else is working on — even if they exist in the main namespace — just creates entirely avoidable conflict for no good reason. So long as links within articles are relevant, there's no real problem with allowing even the spammiest of articles to exist. Fix them (if they actually start to get traffic/links — which in and of itself indicates some measure of notability, by the way) but don't go through some rename-to-draftspace/delete convoluted approval process. --Wclark (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do this to rescue and improve articles, not to delete them. When I think the subject is probably notable, but the references are not sufficient, I move the articles to draft as an alternative to nominating them for deletion, under the provision of alternatives to deletion in WP:Deletion policy. All that anyone needs to do is to add the necessary additional references, and submit it for returning to mainspace. (It's also possible to add the references and return it outside of the drafts process, but that loses the opportunity for review.) If the references are sufficient for notability, neither I nor anyone else is likely to list it for deletion. The article will be improved, and WP will be the gainer.
It is of course technically possible to revert my moves if you disagree, even without adding references. If that is done, I will check it myself, and if I do not think there are sufficient refereneces, I will probably list it for deletion, and the community will decide. Even after such a nomination, it can still be rescued by adding references.
In earlier years, before we had Draftspace, this alternative was not available, and so many articles got deleted that need not have been. I'm very glad the procedure exists, and I use it whenever possible, because my purpose since coming here 12 years ago has consistently been to keep and rescue every article that is possible to be kept. I've rescued thousands. Ideally, it would be better if I could source them all myself, but that's beyond what one person can do; at least this starts the process of getting them sourced.
There's probably some specific article yo uhave in mind, so I'll look at it tomorrow. ,
  • When iI do this, I always do it by using the macro designed for the purpose, so it should not break links. If it is, it'll be necessary to figure out what's gone wrong; perhaps the macro needs fixing or improvement. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like we probably agree on some deeper level here, but maybe not about how best to implement things toward that goal. Fair enough; my complaint isn't with you. Cheers, --Wclark (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wclark, checking, it seems there is a larger and somewhat different problem than I thought. Most of what I have been moving the last few days has been a group ofarticles from an improperly organized WP educational program class, whose students have ben moving or copying their own articles from draft to WP space, apparently without review from the instructor. This has caused a number of problems--it's thoroughly messed up the cross references structure -- as you noticed-- , it's created duplicate or near duplicate undeleted drafts and article, and most of their articles were unencyclopedic essays, not encyclopedia articles, with the typical unsourced opinion appropriate to school essays. Clearing this upwill be long and complicated, and I will try to do it this weekend. Since, as is generally the case with classes, the students are unlikely to return to respond to messages once they have finished the course, the drafts are very unlikely to be improved. The only thing I can think of doing is trying to rewrite myself as many of them as possible as stubs, and then move them properly to mainspace. Snf ythen try to find all the erroneous links. This has happened before, but usually the articles/drafts have been so poor that they can simply be deletedd, but most of these can be rescued. Despite years of effort, there is no real way of making sure the people in a class project follow the instructions. And just as anyone can edit, anyone can run a class sometimes without even telling us. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Lance

Hi DGG, I appreciate your accepting my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Lance yesterday. However, there is still an AfC template at the top of that article. When you have a moment, could you please finish closing the request for this article? Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Perseus25 (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Perseus25. I've removed templates. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Voceditenore. --Perseus25 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Canvasser in Articles for Deletion Thread

Hi, DGG. As you are an administrator, seemingly with an appreciable amount of time on AfD, I was hoping for some help or advice. As a preface, please note: I am not asking in any way, shape, or form for a weigh-in on the nomination itself, whether or not you side with my argument. Obviously I can't bind you to this, but I don't want to fight canvassing with canvassing; my intention here is only to ask for, again, help or advice, insofar as I would like to escalate this issue.

Recently, I opened an AfD thread for the band Open Space. This AfD was shortly responded to by Pr12402, the article's primary maintainer (there are several other issues with this editor outside of this canvassing, but I'll leave it at that for now). The thread was then responded to on the same day by Rosguill, who also spends time on AfD; I didn't raise an eyebrow until they thoughtfully disclosed that they had been contacted by Pr12402 in this message. Per WP:CANVASSING#Inappropriate_notification, this is both Campaigning and Vote-stacking, as the editor both implies they should vote with them and, more importantly, because they already know what their opinion on this matter is. Another note: I have no question that Rosguill did this in good faith; what's ultimately problematic is the way they were brought into the thread.

But that's not the end of it. I found out later that Pr12402 also contacted an editor named Melilac asking them to chime in on the same therad here, which was even more inappropriate than the last, including obviously biased, ad hominem language such as "Foreigners here too obsessed" and "Of course, the one who nominated, does not know the source language". Melilac never voted in the thread, but then another editor named Vit Koz did. This editor was not canvassed on the English Wikipedia, but my suspicions were confirmed when I checked the Belarusian Wikipedia to find that they had also been canvassed by Pr12402, with the same exact message as had been sent to Melilac. Every vote on this thread in favor of keeping the article was either by Pr12402 or by someone inappropriately canvassed by them to stack the vote.

If I didn't make it clear, Pr12402 brought none of this to anyone's attention, and I would never have known had it not been for Rosguill's prudence in disclosing that they were brought there by Pr.

I already stated at the top of my nomination thread after I found out about this that I believe Pr12402 should be banned from further deletion discussions due to this flagrantly manipulative behavior and complete inability to acknowledge that this is a problem, but I fear it might get overlooked by the reviewing administrator as a dispute that belongs elsewhere. I know WP:AGF, but if you would like to read it, this ANI report I filed last week along with comments from other experienced editors show that this editor is beyond WP:AGF at this point.

Any advice would be helpful, and if you could help directly with this, I would be extremely grateful. All the best, TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough to mention the canvassing at the afd, as you did. The reviewing admin will take it into account on closing the afd--we always do. Personally, I would never penalize someone for canvassing a few people on one article. People have been topic banned from afd, but only for extended disruption over multiple articles. As for the article, not my field, and limited language knowledge so I have no way of judging. But my advice to you , is that since a number of additional sources have been listed, the way of responding is to look at each of them, and comment whether or not it is substantial non-PR. Do it calmly and objectively and briefly. .At WP, whoever gets angry first generally loses. DGG ( talk ) 13:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion?

Hi David (and any interested watchers). I'm thinking of proposing/nominating these two unrelated articles for deletion: Kiana Danial and Profound Aesthetic. What do you think? The same editor created both. Profound Aesthetic is particularly problematic in terms of notability and appears to be part of a promotional campaign to create individual articles on two its founders via two other accounts in addition to that one, both here [5] and on Simple Wikipedia [6], [7]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PA is obvious promotionalism -- there is a Time article, but it looks like PR placement and its not by one of their staff. For KD there are the books, though not widely held for a popular field, so there may be an argument--but cryptocurrency gurus don't do well at afd. My advice is, as usual for afd, try them and see. DGG ( talk ) 13:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pretty much what I thought. I've tagged the articles for their obvious problems, will wait to see if the creator improves them significantly. If not, it's off to AfD with possibly an intermediate stop at PROD. In the meantime, I've cleaned up the promotional wording [8] in Kiana Danial . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigue

Hello again DGG. Considering your experience with COI issues, I thought I'd just post a note in case it has any importance: Special:Contributions/199.108.196.20 (from Sigue) appears to have posted a price list on two articles (both reverted, but unsure if they also should be revdeleted or not, etc). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify the articles? But according to WP:REVDEL, this may not be an accepted use for revision deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the address above was erroneous and have fixed it (sorry about that). Its contributions history shows the three articles where the price list was spammed:
Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: El C blocked and applied revdel. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I can see them, for these particular price lists that are totally unrelated to the actual article, rev del seems quite appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, as you asked I added two references to my Draft: The Anthology of Swiss Legal Culture

Could you please re-review the draft? Thank you!

Request on 17:42:34, 16 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by RecordAR


Hello. Thank you for your assistance. I would like to properly revise this article.

1. You are correct that AZCERT focuses solely on heart arrhythmia caused by drug interactions; the mission of the organization is to reduce fatalities. This is a *huge* medical problem that involves hundreds of prescription medications. Does the organization need a wider focus to be considered relevant? JDRF focuses solely on juvenile diabetes. Just trying to understand.

2. Would these resources help establish the organization's credibility? Most are medical resources because it is a medical issue. https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/704202_3 https://secure.medicalletter.org/w1509a https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1767957/ https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/medication-induced-qt-interval-prolongation-and-torsades-de-pointes https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/medialibraries/urmcmedia/medicine/palliative-care/patientcare/documents/methadoneandqtcprolongation.pdf https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/744382/qtc-interval-screening-methadone-treatment https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/PUArticles/DrugInducedQTProlongation.htm

Again, thank you very much. I am trying to get it right.

RecordAR (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)RecordAR[reply]

RecordAR (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Request

Hi, I'm currently involved in a dispute regarding the BLP article William Lane Craig. It's been quite heated at times, and I think I'm going to take a step back. However, I've outlined my positions at Talk:William_Lane_Craig#Lack_of_consensus_and_some_theses_about_this_biography_article, and was wondering if you could give me some feedback on them so I can know if I'm on the right track or not. - Thanks, GretLomborg (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the dispute resolution has started and hopefully that will give me some feedback. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Oleson

Did you have any comments on the article? How it can be improved? Anything that bothered you? I gather from your profile that you have a strong academic background so welcome your comments on an academic’s bio. (Hope to add a talk page to the article when I have some time IRL.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re Elizabeth L. Cless new article

The Talk page for my article now details two third-source validations for the article's use of "first" in the sentence, "This was the first major continuing education program specifically for women in the history of the United States." I've put the citations into the article. Please take a look. My understanding is that the editor who places a template like POV is supposed to have a conversation on my Talk page about it, telling me what to fix; "first" is the only specific I have from you. If there are more, I would appreciate knowing what they are. I don't know how to respond to your comment to me quoted in bold: this seems written to praise the subject, not give a neutral description of her life and achievements. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Is that what caused the POV template to be placed, or was it the "first" that I think I've dealt with? If the former, what bothers you? Thank you for your editing and assistance. (FYI, this isn't a class project--I'm 78, have done minor Wikipedia editing, this is my first article, and I may work on "Lifelong learning" in a while.)LM6407 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think people will take a hint. And then, if further help is needed, I'l always give it. The main work I do here is screen drafts and articles, and though it would certainly be ideal to comment in some detail on all of them, it's critically necessary that the relatively few of us who do this manage to at least look at all of them as promptly as possible. We have a collection of standard templates, and they do not always fit the case exactly; it is possible to write custom ones, but the advantages of using a limited number of standard ones is that they can be put into categories for following up. I & everyone involved in the screening are always open to improvements, but many of them simply cannot be done unless s greater number of experienced editors participate--but most experienced editors here prefer to write articles of their own (which is good), or to get involved in our many intricate and long-continuing arguments (which is not so good, but it's their choice). I'm trying to say that I am aware of our limitations, and I understand that they are unfortunate.
You have accidentally picked a user name similar to the sort of user name often employed by class projects, so it can cause some initial misunderstanding; I apologize.
As for the article, see my comments on the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled rights

Hi, as you have patrolled several of 60 articles that I created, can I ask you for the autopatrolled rights? Apart from enwiki, I am active on plwiki where I created more than 350 articles. Niegodzisie (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niegodzisie, There was a recent copyvio problem and a successfully challenged article, so I think it may not yet be the time. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, thank you. I understand. Both arcticles were created more than four months ago and since that time I have created several new ones. How much time should pass untill those two would not be considered as "recent"? Niegodzisie (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
about 10 or 20 or so more articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:YEET

Philosophically, do you think repeatedly deleted drafts should be salted? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it clear that an article cannot be written on the topic, or if the various versions are all of them advertising, I usually semi-protect after 2 or 3 times. But for the one you have in mind, Draft:History of Yeet, the current draft is significantly different from the previous versions, and if it can be sourced it might conceivably become an article. One of the deletions was a one-line stub, one here, and one or or 2 of the variants were where the term was used as a BLP violation. The most recent was similar to the present in content, but written in Wiktionary format, and belonged in Wiktionary .Since the term is in widely used--even someone like myself has seen it multiple times--, I wouldn't say it's impossible. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Brown

Hi DGG. Please review my comment for you on Talk:Jenny Brown (feminist).--Elindstr (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Prior deletion

Rhododendrol ?? Atsme Talk 📧 20:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

checked. It seems OK, DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Hello, I was wondering, if you get the time and are willing, if you could see what I have done wrong that I cannot use "one-click" archiving. I would really like to archive like yours is presented. I went through the motions but it does not work. Otr500 (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not use one-click archiving. I probably should. What I do is at approx weekly intervals each month I delete material of purely ephemeral concern such as most notices, copy & paste to the archive all the material since the previous update without removing anything, and then delete what I've finished working on & is otherwise not of particular interest. This page , with the still somewhat active material, therefore always gets much too long. I cannot in good faith recommend this to anyone else. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Story of my life. Since I have never archived I thought it a good idea as opposed to my solution of collapsing material. I don't even know how to copy and paste "to the archive". Thanks, I will see if I can find someone or place to find out more. Otr500 (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To copy and paste, start a new subpage by searching for something like [[User talk:XXX/talkarchive1,]] go to edit source on your main yalk page ,copy (or cut) in the usual way (command-C or control-C), go to the new page , and paste. The really nonintuitive part is how to start a new p. in WP, but that's been the case since the start. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:48:35, 23 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Stevenpq


Thanks for the super quick response!

Stevenpq (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marina_Anca

Hi DGG,

You declined an article I submitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marina_Anca

I chatted with ToBeFree in the wiki chat room and he/she thought the English was understandable.

I am a native English speaker, so I'm trying to understand what I need to change to have this article accepted. Can you please advise. Thank you.

Mr. Promise (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not a native speaker and I didn't review the draft's sources. The text appears to be understandable, but there may be something specific you're referring to. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get an understanding on what I need to change to get the article accepted, so any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Mr. Promise (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I'm still awaiting your response so I can change my article so that I can have it accepted for publication. Thank you. Mr. Promise (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Promise (talk • contribs) 21:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Mr. Promise (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Diffix

Hi DGG,

thank you very much for your fast review of the article - I have a few questions on your comments before I start editing the draft again:

"There need to be third-party independent references showing this is widely used."

The market for data anonymization solutions is fairly new and has only gained momentum since the introduction of the GDPR in May 2018. Therefore, these solutions are not yet in use across the board. However, they are discussed in media such as Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Big Data Insider, Computerwoche, CSO Australia and Sifted.

Diffix is also being discussed in a new paper by the European Commission 'Competition Policy in the Digital Era' (page 86 et seq.).

Are these references sufficient or can you advise what kind of resource would be?


"Some possible controversial statements in section 3 need specific sources."

I think you are referring to the following statements. I added the references/sources but they link to a companies' blog. Is that okay in this case?

Defences against the specific attacks were implemented, and the attacks were subsequently published in October 2018.[1]

The attack was never demonstrated. Aircloak claims that the necessary database conditions for executing the attack are rare, and researchers at MPI-SWS have been unable to replicate the attack.[2]

Thank you. Satyrotr (talk)

(talk page stalker) I don't have access to the WSJ, so I won't comment on that possible source. Of the other sources listed here, Forbes is firstly a "contributor", i.e. a blogger hosted by Forbes but not under Forbes' editorial control. Secondly, it doesn't mention Diffix at all and thus would be useless as a reference for Draft:Diffix even if it were a reliable source. The others, Bid Data Insider, Computerwoche, CSO and Sifted, might be more reliable but also don't mention Diffix. That leaves us with the EU report which says little besides that it's a "question-and-answer" system where a security vulnerability was found recently. The source seems reliable enough for Wikipedia's purposes, but I rather don't think it can be considered significant coverage since every single time Diffix is mentioned in the source (thrice in more than 100 pages) it's only one of several examples given. Diffix on its own is not discussed at all.
Regarding the attacks, when independent researchers publish papers on security vulnerabilities, we cannot take the company's or affiliated organizations' (including the MPI's) own words that those vulnerabilities are not a problem. We need equally independent sources - say, a news report confirming that the vulnerability indeed is resolved or a scholarly paper disputing the other scholars' findings. As an aside, the first press release also seems to be misrepresented; it says an "improvement that was already in development before the vulnerability was reported addresses the attack"; it doesn't say the vulnerability was published only after the improvement was fully developed and implemented as implied by the "subsequently". Huon (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Goop (company)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Goop (company). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CEN is now open!

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:30:17, 27 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Banquo92


Dear reviewer,

You have rejected the article I composed on the Integrated Management Concept because "most of it is still uncited". The concept originates from the works of Knut Bleicher (references 2 to 5), where it is also extensively defined and elaborated. I have also mentioned other resources, in which the concept is further developed (6 to 11) but the main definitions of the concept presented in the article are taken from the works of Bleicher. I have carefully avoided direct citations and have used my own words to present the general assumptions.

Please let me know in more detail why this article is still considered as unsatisfactory. Which are the particular paragraphs where more citations and references are needed?

Thank you very much for your support!

Sincerely, Kiril Ivanov

Banquo92 (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Artel Great

Hello,

I was wondering if you could help me. You see, I'm trying to re-create the article mentioned above, which was deleted by JzG on May 20, 2010. Now it seems that JzG is on a wikibreak, considering that his/her most recent contribution occurred on March 14, 2019. I read on JzG's user page that you have his/her "permission to undelete or unprotect any article (he/she has) deleted". That being said, would you please be willing to unprotect either the article mentioned above or the article Artel Kayàru, which JzG also deleted on May 20, 2010? I'll have you know I've created a draft titled Artel Great; I've written it in a way so that it could pass per WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR.

Please ping me or please feel free to leave a message on my talk page to respond. Thank you. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello DGG,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the WMF/enWP crisis

Please note that all responses are likely to be delayed during the crisis at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Unlke some of the admins I know and like best, I'm not resigning my adminship or leaving WP, but I find it discouraging to work under the profound contempt for the community by those who think they are in charge, combined with their incompetence at what they are trying to do. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with African Studies Review and African Issues?

This considers the journals related with the following history

  • African Studies Review, v.1 1958 - onwards. ( v. 62 in 2019 )
    • Issue: Quarterly Journal of Opinion (1971-1999) and African Issues (2000-2004) (1971 - 2004)
    • ASA Review of Books (1975 - 1980)
    • Africana Newsletter (1962 - 1964)

That's rather disjointed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes. European learned societies tended to do that sort of thing. Drives librarians nuts. Fortunately, the tables of contents are online, so it is possible to see the rationale:
  • African Studies Review is the main title. Combination research journal and newsletter,and book reviews

They also published several supplementary titles:

  • Issue:Quarterly Journal of Opinion, retitled as African Issues. , also a research journal, but focussed on current topics & a little less formal. .
  • Africana Newsletter published bibliographies and research guides for a few issues
  • ASA Review of books, was a book review supplement.

This is part of a general pattern: societies had a journal, and as the academic world expanded in the 1970s, decided the could profitably publish several related topics and charge extras, and they did a lot of experiemntation to find something that worked. As the academic world contracted in the 2000s, they combined them back again.

The key factor in the economics of learned societies, now and then, is that membership includes the journal. Normally, many or most of the members have joined primarily to get the journal. They want to keep the membership rate affordable, which can only be done by charging libraries a good deal extra. This causes all sorts of secondary effects, such as a great resistance to open access, because if there were open access, they'd lose members. Many schemes for open access, especially in the humanities, have foundered because of this problem. Publishers kept telling me there was no way around this, so I had a graduate seminar do a joint project on a particular society and its publications, and they did a pretty good analysis and found the publishers were right. Varmus, who developed the first real open access scheme in 1999, dealt with it by proposing to directly subsidize the societies. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what should be done to these journals? Get merged/consolidated to African Studies Review? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I think merge them. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://aircloak.com/report-on-the-diffix-vulnerability-announced-by-imperial-college-london-and-cu-louvain/
  2. ^ https://aircloak.com/statement-regarding-the-attack-on-diffix-by-imperial-college-scientists/