User talk:DGG/Archive 139 Aug. 2018
Hi, the draft on the Advanced Nursing Process was rejected. Saying its the same as Advanced Nursing (a professional role), is wrong. The Advanced Nursing Process is something else and needs to be defined on WP. Ill edit the draft to better explain.
ARCHIVES
DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG
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
Page review[edit]
Review the article Samson Olatunde for me. Work in progress but reviewable
Aghachi7 (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding IED Countermeasure Equipment[edit]
I apologize for the long delay in responding to your message. There is a severe shortage of general sources about this counter-IED technology and there are no sources that hint at its use past 2008. I imagine it's no longer in use since it was developed as a temporary emergency response measure but I have no evidence to back up this claim.
Epark251 (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2018 (EST)
Check a close[edit]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pointy - I also pinged you to the discussion on the TP of Enterprisey. Thanks in advance...Atsme📞📧 13:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't see it, you PROD of Khyati Sharma was removed by an IP without explanation. ~ GB fan 11:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Mail[edit]
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Dr Silverstein (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you patrol this article in the feed? I don't know enough about notability for journals. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
hi DGG, i was going thru Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 6 and came across the above afd that has been closed by a non-admin editor Vulcan's Forge, just wondering if you could check that this is correct as the afd was only opened for a couple of days and no editors gave there opinion about it, thanks. ps. i have left a note on VF's talkpage asking them about it. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The page while at AfD was listed for speedy by another editor and deleted by an experienced admin. The closer just recorded the fact. (Ideally, they should have specified in the close that it was because of the speedy, which would have avoided confusion). As for the page itself, Deletion was clearly appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 13:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- thanks heaps:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The page while at AfD was listed for speedy by another editor and deleted by an experienced admin. The closer just recorded the fact. (Ideally, they should have specified in the close that it was because of the speedy, which would have avoided confusion). As for the page itself, Deletion was clearly appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 13:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Notification of RFC of stub articles about Norwegian mountain[edit]
I would like to inform you that an an RFC has been opened to discuss what should be done with the stubs of Norwegian mountains. I am posting this notice since you had participated in the AFD for the mountains. Therefore, if you or any interested page stalkers / editors would like to chime in, please make your way to the RFC now. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, you reviewed my page submission for "Sean Bloomfield." Thank you very much for the feedback. The reasons you left for not accepting the submission were two: A lack of independent secondary sources that were about the subject at hand (not just mere mentions) and that the author's book is not in many libraries. My key question is to how many independent secondary sources are necessary for a subject to be considered noteworthy. I could not find that in the segment that described notability, and I listed around 15 separate secondary sources and publications that were all solely about the subject's trip or subsequent book (not just passing mentions). One such publication even listed the subject as a person that Minnesotans should be thankful for. My second question is in regards to the book. Should I change the order in the first line to highlight that the subject's main achievement is as an adventurer, and less as an author? I also noticed that there were no requirements for books to be published by a major publishing company or in a certain number of libraries. Are these requirements that I missed? If so, how many libraries are the books required to be placed in?
Thank you for your help! This is my first article creation, though I have begun making contributions to and cleaning up other articles. Hoping to gain a better understanding of the requirements as I move forward.
Nwmetro98 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- The purpose of AfC review is to accept articles that would probably pass the community review at WP:AFD, and declinethose that would not. In practice, articles on authors on self-published works never pass AfD except in rare cases where their renown as an author can be clearly established. The rationale for that is that publishing by a tr;isb;e reputable publisher implies that a an authority has judged the author;'s work important enough to publish; this is , obviously, not the case for self publishing. Whether or not you (or I) agree with this practice, my 11 years of experience at AfD discussions of thousands of articles on authors, has shown me that this is the practical result. It would accomplish nothing if I accepted such an article, for it would almost certainly be deleted at AfD. Similarly, the same is the case for authors whose books are only in a very few libraries--in the absence of exceptional circumstances, they will be deleted at AfD.
- As for other possible reasons for notability , the GNG is not considered to be satisfied by reviews in local or specialized publications, because they tendto give indiscriminate coverage of local people. Nor is it satisfied for biographical subjects if the coverage is based upon WP:ONEEVENT.
- Thei nclusion of references to reviews in Amazon and goodreads, and to his own website, furthe weaken the article: not of them are WP:Reliable sources.
- As you work here you will learn, that just as the participants in WP make the policies and guidelines by consensus, they also decide ny consensus how they are to be interpreted. DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
revdel suggestion[edit]
I have brought my suggestion to WP:VPP#WP:BMB, any input would be appreciated (as this could resque some good material while keeping spirit of WP:BMB). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Reg Asking bid vs Cue bid etc and confusion[edit]
Hello DGG ! Without emmosions, I have (hopefully) made Asking bid less confusing now. I'm not aware weather you are acquainted with Contract Bridge or not. But if this isn't the case, perhaps you could compare with Cue bid ? I also would like to say that our articles on mathematics (for which I at several occasions have argued for including at least one "hard figures" example in each), isn't intended to fully be understood without having a top university level math education. Meaning articles on Bridge conventions cannot begin from scratch, if you see what I'm saying. If possible, and if you still feel Asking bid to be confusing (also after improvements and in the light for instance our math articles and Cue bid), it would be very nice of you to enlighten me what's most confusing, in your opinion. I do not wish it to be confusing, however the sources actually states (in 1973 or 1985) "they are now omitted despite Culbertson himself firmly believed in them..." it's also "between the lines" stated that not all agreed and some found this convention "confusing". Nevertheless I think the article, from a Bridge-historical perspective, isn't undue. And it wasn't I who added them to the list of Bridge conventions (as a red link). Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Amadu Sulley[edit]
The Article Amadu Sulley is about a Ghanaian . He meets Wikipedia notability requirement per statute of his position carried and the landmark background of his dismissal from office in his home country,Ghana .
Ghana is a country whose some of its citizens are discovering the importance of Wikipedia as a platform.
The article is a stub and will be expanded and must be protected.
I will be pleased if you could remove it from wikipedia list marked for deletion.
Ataavi (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Asking bids - request for advice II[edit]
The information on when/if removing the "confusing-template" is too confusing to me. Unless you can advice me otherwise, I intend to remove it, as I feel Asking bid (no longer) is any more confusing to our readers than any other Bridge convention article. Boeing720 (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- It can take me a few days to respond to questions. I still find it much less clear than the one you cited in the previous note-- and te author of an article is not the best person to say how clear something is. There are two key things that might help. First, define all special terms the first time you use them. Second, move the historical information to a later section. It confuses the flow of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
In response to comments, improvement to the Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn page have been made and a reference (in French) added[edit]
Thanks for your comments on the talk page for Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn. Actually, he is mentioned in the second reference. I took up the task of trying to address them and improve the article with a good 2nd reference (now located) regarding his family, particularly his brother. It's true how infrequent he is mentioned with regard to his brother. In research, one concludes that Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn never been "on the record" with the press or any media outlet regarding his brother. One might infer that he has managed his own professional reputation, as central banker and chief economist. In media articles, he has not been associated with the separate scandals of his brother. The sentence about his wife and brother and sister has been modified, in which stating he has two sons has been removed, since there is no independent media coverage about them (there are only genealogies/CVs/etc.). To better improve, and to establish, notability about the subject's family (wife and brother), a verifiable source article has been added: https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie/030408/les-strauss-kahn-beneficient-d-un-regroupement-familial-a-washington?onglet=full Lettucecup (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC
Heads up - userfied something else[edit]
Back in this MfD about a month or so ago (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pseudo-Richard/Antisemitic canards related to money, banking and finance) I userfied the main article under deletion under your userspace (User:DGG/Jewish stereotypes in banking and finance). It was recently pointed out to me that there was a second bundled article, which I have now userfied to you as well at User:DGG/History of Jews in American banking. If you don't want that one, let me know and I'll undo myself. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please leave them both, soI can work on them. But I'm going to do the Role of Jews on the American film industry first--because this topic is absolutely genuine; Jews did dominate Hollywood during the studio system, whereas they never dominated banking and finance. That antisemites decried the Jewish dominance of the American film industry is undeniable, butt the phenomenon was real. Jews tried in response to anti-semitism to hide this somewhat during the 20s and 30s (and even a little later), but that's part of real history also. It's characteristic of prejudice that the prejudiced group tends to disparage their victims for their real roles and characteristics, as well as the imaginary. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Dąbrowski Manor in Michałowice[edit]
Thank you for moving Dąbrowski Manor in Michałowice into article space. Exxess (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, the draft of the Mark Bisnow entry was edited according to your guidance. Could you please review it when you have a chance?
Thank you.
Wiki-contrib-acct (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this is unbelievable. Why are you people rejecting the article? Its over three months now, at ist..you guys said there wasn't enough evidence, now you have. Miss charming Nigeria is a national pageant, The Former Chief Judge of Nigeria endorsed it, the Lagos state government endorsed it, the Nations newspaper in Nigeria endorsed it nation wide. Why are you then rejecting? There are many articles on Wikipedia that isn't even worth mention, yet they are there. This is injustice. Is it because Wikipedia isn't owned by Africans? As long as enough facts were submitted, please accept it. You can verify us on IG.. Lots of people wants to know more about Miss Charming Nigeria. Thanks Pls help us in putting this on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapking007 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- the purpose of review at afc is to avoid placing on wikipedia articles that would most likely be deleted by a community decision. Based on my experience here, I think this article would in fact be very likely to be rejected by the community . Another reviewer may think differently, and then thecommunity decision at AfD will decide whether we keep it, not me personally. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
If you can help in editing the style of this draft, Im thankful. Im a content person with a professorship in nursing, and a beginner in writing for WP.
Mehwei (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- reply iforthcoming
Hello. That page was salted long ago but it was recreated today as Alexander Melen. Which I have renamed. Can you or a stalker check if G4 applies? It might be worth mentioning that Draft:Alex Melen was deleted 5 days ago. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The deletion log is 05:04, 16 August 2018 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Alive Hospice (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I removed that speedy deletion tag yesterday. Then, when this action was reverted, I contested the speedy deletion as the coverage of the topic seemed reasonably neutral and, in any case, G11 requires that the issue be impossible to correct by ordinary editing. Please reconsider. Andrew D. (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will look again. But I am much less tolerant of promotionalism than I was 8 or 10 years ago, and I tend to interpret G11 to include articles that would need major rewriting--unless I or someone personally will immediately do the rewriting. Will you? DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I can and do rewrite articles but I didn't get the impression that the article was promotional and so can't fix a problem than I can't see. If you think that it was "unambiguous advertising" then you'd have to explain this with some details. For example, promotional material would tend to have some images and be generally much richer in graphics. Promotional material would tend to include anecdotes, human-interest stories, accolades and other quotes. I don't recall anything like this and found the article to be a fairly dry account of the institution's history and structure. If you see it differently, then you'd have to explain or point to the problem. Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will look again. But I am much less tolerant of promotionalism than I was 8 or 10 years ago, and I tend to interpret G11 to include articles that would need major rewriting--unless I or someone personally will immediately do the rewriting. Will you? DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'll look, but not today DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, You are right, I made an error. I seem to have been over-influencd by the apparent paid editing. I have undeleted and moved it to Draft:Alive Hospice . If you want to fix it up and move it to mainspace, feel free. If anyone wants to list it for AfD they can then do so. Thanks for calling this to my attention. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- While I'm here, please note that List of giant animals in fiction has been nominated again. In the previous discussion, you said that "I am frankly a little exasperated at people coming here with things they say cannot be sourced, when they haven't found the obvious ones in even the Google. WP: BEFORE should be an absolute requirement...". Matters have not improved as editors not only don't search themselves; they don't acknowledge good sources when they are presented. This looks like a case of WP:IDHT to me... Andrew D. (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will defend essentially any __in fiction article that has content. I think that's the sort of thing that WP can do very well, and that this sort of content is in fact the subject of serious study. As for sourcing, you are also s librarian, so you know the general rule that most people will not look beyond those free sources found on the first page of Google. I have never known anyone other than a librarian or a patent attorney actually do a comprehensive search all the way through Google, . Perhaps 10% of people here will use library resources-- even if they can get them free through their library on the internet . As for printed books, the main people who use them here are subject enthusiasts who have their own collections. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Lantern Entertainment Vs. TWC[edit]
DGG following up on your comment on the Lantern Entertainment page (copied below), you said you're prepared to make the split, do you have any idea as to when that might be complete? The page still shares incorrect information about both companies
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lantern_Entertainment
"I think we do need two articles. The Weinstein Company is by far the better known at present, and the principal article should be at that name, and will give the information about the sale of the assets. Latern is notable enough by itself for a separate page, where the link can be briefly stated. I'm prepared to do the split. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekparker63 (talk • contribs)
This historic Islamic concept has been merged by the fringe noticeboard. The person who closed the discussion participated and the participation was certain not broad enough for a concept this important. Every participate engages heavily on that board, frankly this concept doesn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of being merged or deleted at AfD. This is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to not allow this. Can you revert and open an AfD or does this required the snail's pace bureaucratic method? Valoem talk contrib 18:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have no special authority in matters of content. You have to follow the usual full DR process. I will give my opinion on the article talk page after I've looked further. But please, when you post here asking my opinion on a dispute, just ask me to look at something without leading me to what you want. I want to look at things from scratch and give my own opinion. But I have looked at the article histories, andI remind you not to go anywhere near 3R. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The deletion log is 05:04, 16 August 2018 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Alive Hospice (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I removed that speedy deletion tag yesterday. Then, when this action was reverted, I contested the speedy deletion as the coverage of the topic seemed reasonably neutral and, in any case, G11 requires that the issue be impossible to correct by ordinary editing. Please reconsider. Andrew D. (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will look again. But I am much less tolerant of promotionalism than I was 8 or 10 years ago, and I tend to interpret G11 to include articles that would need major rewriting--unless I or someone personally will immediately do the rewriting. Will you? DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I can and do rewrite articles but I didn't get the impression that the article was promotional and so can't fix a problem than I can't see. If you think that it was "unambiguous advertising" then you'd have to explain this with some details. For example, promotional material would tend to have some images and be generally much richer in graphics. Promotional material would tend to include anecdotes, human-interest stories, accolades and other quotes. I don't recall anything like this and found the article to be a fairly dry account of the institution's history and structure. If you see it differently, then you'd have to explain or point to the problem. Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will look again. But I am much less tolerant of promotionalism than I was 8 or 10 years ago, and I tend to interpret G11 to include articles that would need major rewriting--unless I or someone personally will immediately do the rewriting. Will you? DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'll look, but not today DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, You are right, I made an error. I seem to have been over-influencd by the apparent paid editing. I have undeleted and moved it to Draft:Alive Hospice . If you want to fix it up and move it to mainspace, feel free. If anyone wants to list it for AfD they can then do so. Thanks for calling this to my attention. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- While I'm here, please note that List of giant animals in fiction has been nominated again. In the previous discussion, you said that "I am frankly a little exasperated at people coming here with things they say cannot be sourced, when they haven't found the obvious ones in even the Google. WP: BEFORE should be an absolute requirement...". Matters have not improved as editors not only don't search themselves; they don't acknowledge good sources when they are presented. This looks like a case of WP:IDHT to me... Andrew D. (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will defend essentially any __in fiction article that has content. I think that's the sort of thing that WP can do very well, and that this sort of content is in fact the subject of serious study. As for sourcing, you are also s librarian, so you know the general rule that most people will not look beyond those free sources found on the first page of Google. I have never known anyone other than a librarian or a patent attorney actually do a comprehensive search all the way through Google, . Perhaps 10% of people here will use library resources-- even if they can get them free through their library on the internet . As for printed books, the main people who use them here are subject enthusiasts who have their own collections. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Lantern Entertainment Vs. TWC[edit]
DGG following up on your comment on the Lantern Entertainment page (copied below), you said you're prepared to make the split, do you have any idea as to when that might be complete? The page still shares incorrect information about both companies
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lantern_Entertainment
"I think we do need two articles. The Weinstein Company is by far the better known at present, and the principal article should be at that name, and will give the information about the sale of the assets. Latern is notable enough by itself for a separate page, where the link can be briefly stated. I'm prepared to do the split. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekparker63 (talk • contribs)
Checking in again here. Is there anything that can help move this along? The page is still giving out the wrong information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekparker63 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Monsanto problems again - please advise[edit]
Hi DGG
You might remember me from the big GMO ArbCom. I have very little time and even less know-how for dealing with the issue I bring to you today. I left a note on Jimmy's page here that explains roughly what happened the other night. In a nutshell, I think the editors ArbCom didn't ban are not impartial and have not been sticking true to science, nor have they been keeping the pages updated.
Monsanto/Bayer is fighting a slew of legal cases, the first of which they just lost last week. They are fighting claims that Roundup in particular causes cancer. The company is defending itself by being duplicitous, and trying to conflate the formulated product, known by them (according to internal email released during trial) to be more toxic than the main ingredient, Glyphosate, alone.
The editors who have been fighting to keep the Roundup page deleted are, perhaps inadvertently, helping the defense in what will be a multi-billion dollar set of cases. This is bigger than me, this is a huge issue for Wikipedia and I think the Arbs need to be involved right now in looking at this. I do think there should be some topic bans for those not following the science and NPOV, who are making ludicrous arguments that end up serving the corporation. I just saw one of our most beloved editors, Groupuscule, banned from editing this suite of articles *. So by this point, there is a monolithic group deciding how the articles should read, and I don't believe this group has NPOV as their priority. It still seems they are trying to defend Monsanto's interests. petrarchan47คุก 19:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- You are possible notifying me because In the 2005 Arb case, I was of a minority opinion in the remedy on casting aspersions. Bu the arbs do not get involved in individual instances of COI unless there is confidential evidence. Given the continuing and increasing news coverage of Roundup, it should be easier to defend (or re-create) the page. In asking me to look at an issue, I prefer notto be guided to the action or opinion desired; when asked, I use my own judgment. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I won't guide you in any direction, and apologize for doing so. My thoughts are: "Roundup" was deleted without community discussion, and redirected to "Glyphosate", though they are not synonymous. I agree that the prominence of Roundup in RS has not diminished but has actually increased. Would you consider reinstating the page... or how does this work? (Please excuse my ignorance as to the workings of WP, reinstating a page is new to me.) petrarchan47คุก 19:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I made a comment or 2 -- things seem to be progressing reasonably. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't see that. It appears actually that an RfC determined Roundup should be split from the Glyphosate page (in other words, that the deletion of Roundup proper and redirect to Glyphosate was wrong and lacks community consensus). No one has restored the article since this RfC in 2013. I don't think there is any reason to have another discussion about it. Are you able to do this, or where do I go? Thanks again, petrarchan47คุก 20:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- A proper split of the material will be quite complicated. Ideally, it would need at least the following. a/ the main article needs to mention the major manufacturers and their brands. b/ Some of the material in the main article needs to mention the brand involved in the particular matter. c/ There needs to be a discussion of the popular perception and the political elements dealing with this particular formulation. d/ the material in the article on Monsanto legal cases needs to be cross-referenced. The restoration is possibly more likely to be accepted if I do it, but this is considerably more effort than I am able to devote to the subject. It would be more practical to take the version at [1], and remove material not specific to Roundup. But considering the history, I want first to try to understand what the point is of those who did not want a separate article. I would have expected those who think it uniquely harmful and the company to be evil would want a separate article, but so would those who think it unjustly maligned. I do not understand why anyone would want it hidden. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Admins and 'news'[edit]
Is there orientation material for those considering adminship that mentions that admin actions can "make the news"? Even in the smallest actions?
You nominated an article for deletion; deleted at beginning of month; and just now that company has made themselves (momentarily) notorious. And so now the lack of an article is noticed! (sigh) comments on an article about SentinelOne Shenme (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am not. Rather this was just an observation that people/admin actions can have unintended appearances/consequences, purely because of happenstance. Synchronicity can delight or bedevil. Shenme (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
This historic Islamic concept has been merged by the fringe noticeboard. The person who closed the discussion participated and the participation was certain not broad enough for a concept this important. Every participate engages heavily on that board, frankly this concept doesn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of being merged or deleted at AfD. This is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to not allow this. Can you revert and open an AfD or does this required the snail's pace bureaucratic method? Valoem talk contrib 18:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have no special authority in matters of content. You have to follow the usual full DR process. I will give my opinion on the article talk page after I've looked further. But please, when you post here asking my opinion on a dispute, just ask me to look at something without leading me to what you want. I want to look at things from scratch and give my own opinion. But I have looked at the article histories, andI remind you not to go anywhere near 3R. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018
From an encyclopedic point of view, lack of research also may mean lack of high-quality references: the core medical literature differs from primary research, since it operates by aggregating trials. This bibliographic deficit clearly hinders Wikipedia's mission. The ScienceSource project is currently addressing this issue, on Wikidata. Its Wikidata focus list at WD:SSFL is trying to ensure that neglect does not turn into bias in its selection of science papers.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
You were the primary discussant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheels Up. I have rehabilitated the article and want your consideration on moving it into mainspace.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely much better. Move it into mainspace and we'll see if anyone nominates it for AfD. It certainly passes speedy. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely much better. Move it into mainspace and we'll see if anyone nominates it for AfD. It certainly passes speedy. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Growth team updates #1[edit]
Welcome to the first newsletter for the new Growth team!
The Growth Team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects. We will be starting with Wikipedias, but we hope these changes will benefit every community.
8 ideas we consider: tell us what you think about them!
- Aeanderson2 (talk · contribs)
Aeanderson2 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- In practice, all such articles brought to afgd recently have been deleted--another one mentioned here seems not to have been notices, and I am nominating it also. I do not think it is possible to show notability unless the program has actually been discussed in the professional literature. If you can find good references, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
sources[edit]
do you have specifics contradicting any of the sources? Some of the sources, for example, Strabo, Ptolemy, Livy, Arrian, Thucydides, etc. are used by all modern scholars. The Smith dictionaries are extensively used and followed by others (more modern) such as the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World and An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. I'd like to know of conflicting information. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, you listed this article for deletion because you write it does not demonstrate notability. In depth coverage in two reliable independent sources, what else do you need? I would like you to be more specific in complaints like this because they are likely to disappoint other users. Crotopaxi (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I expanded my comment; as our rules provide, even tho you are the original author, you are permitted to remove the proposed deletion tag; if you do, I suggest you add additional references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, or I will probably take it to afd for a community decision.. If you do not have additional sources at hand, it can be moved to Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your fast response. But come on, the Newsweek source has two whole paragraphs about the bank, AlterNet four short ones. I had no problem to find numerous other ones, and already added one. If you are not interested in the topic, no problem, but why not just stay away from it? I find it quite worrisome that there are numerous wikipedians who complain about the work of others without substantive evidence that they are willing to support each others voluntary contributions. This won't help the project to grow or improve, it shies away those who get easily intimidated. No wonder there are far less female than male wikipedians. Crotopaxi (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Why do you conclude I am not interested in the topic? But there are some topics that are likely to be the targets of promotional editing, and work on advocacy and social service organizations, especially those that might take controversial roles, are among them., especially when good sources for notability appear to be lacking. What I care about is NPOV, and I therefore watch both inadvertent as well as deliberate promotionalism & lack of notability on all topics, or at least all topics I can understand. . If you think this is an inappropriatre activity, you can discuss this, either with me or elsewhere, The first step is to add the references you indicate, and then I'll look again. I remind you that this was a proposed deletion only, the least drastic and most reversible of all ways of doing it, and that I have always regarded the ideal response to a deletion nomination to be an improved article. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Defense of new article Anthony Moy Tung Dandridge[edit]
Hi, you rejected this article as "unambigious advertising or promotion." It was deleted before I could post my defense, so here it is - I'd appreciate a response:
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Anthony Moy Tung Dandridge is a notable public figure who has recieved significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. He has been teaching Moy Yat Ving Tsun Kung Fu for over 30 years. Today, there are more than 25 branches in his kung fu lineage, with sifus in 3 generations of students under him; student, grandstudent and great-grandstudent sifus. After he founded the Richmond Moy Yat Kung Fu Academy in 1986, the Richmond Times-Dispatch newspaper (origin 1850) wrote an article about him and his school, interviewing him as a source. Just recently, Wing Chun Illustrated magazine (est 2011) published an article-interview with him. In between, RVAMag.com (est 2005) has done two articles about him, his school, his kung fu and kung fu family events, published 2010 and 2018, quoting him, his kung fu brothers and his students. The Richmond Style Weekly (est 1982) published an article about him and his school in 2011, quoting him and students. Moy Tung's teacher, Moy Yat, who has had a wikipedia article for many years, considered Moy Tung significant enough to mention twice in his book A Legend of Kung Fu Masters. Moy Tung's school, as well as those of a number of Moy Tung's students, were listed on moyyat.com prior to Grandmaster Moy Yat's passing in 2001. Finally, I've also cited kungfurichmond.com (Richmond Moy Yat Kung Fu Academy) and kungfuhq.com (Moy Tung Athletic Association - branches), as additional evidence that these are things he and his organizations say about him, in addition to the reports in reliable sources independent of him.
On the Wikipedia Notability page is says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability --Gorkelobb (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkelobb (talk • contribs)
- I did not delete it because of there being no evidence of significance. Rather, I deleted it for being entirely promotional to the extent that it could not be fixed without being fundamentally rewritten. . That's an even more important criterion, because WP is not a collection of tributes or advertisements. But I see that you also have written a draft about him under a variant name Draft:Moy Tung--a draft that already has been rejected by 2 other editors. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You once tagged this article Csd a couple of months ago. I can't see from the logs if it was deleted or what happened. In any case, it's come back, as promotional as ever by the same author. May be it should be salted.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- a little better this time, but still promotional enough for G11. I think they'll give up. I usually salt the 3rd time, or the 2nd if its outrageous. This isn't outrageous. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
David, usually we take inclusion in Scopus as a sign of notability. However, in this case Scopus says that the journal was indexed "from 2016 to 2017" (which I generously interpreted as "indexed in 2016 and 2017", although it could very well mean that it was included from Jan 1 2016 to Jan 1 2017). If the journal would currently be indexed, this would read "from 2016 to present". So it was only 1 or 2 years and Scopus and has since been delisted. It was PRODed earlier today (not by me) and I assume that you'll want to dePROD because it is published by the Czech Academy of Sciences. Regardless of that, what do you think about Scopus? If this were some obscure (but honest) publisher, would you take the listing in those 2 years as a sign of notability or not? (We don't have this issue with ISI, because their Master Journal List only lists journals that are currently indexed, not journals that at some point in the past have been indexed.) Thanks! Best, --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- When Scopus was first published, I reviewed it at some length in the professional literature ("Comparative Reviews of Scopus and Web of Science." with Louise Deis
The Charleston Advisor (Nov 2005) 7 (2) 5-20; my current link for this is broke--I will locate another) . and supplemented my review approximately biannually as it improved. The deliberate intent of Scopus was to cover the scholarly literature more broadly than ISI, including considerably more material on the social sciences, and somewhat more third world material. ISI responded to it by broadening its own coverage, Scopus did similarly, and the 2 have been continuing this ever since. There is a difference--ISI stratified its product, Scopus has kept a single database.
- With respect to its coverage for this journal, Scopus has covered through the latest published issue, 2017 no.2. (there are 2 issues/year). It says it has listed 16 items, which from the Journal's table of contents is the total of all substantive articles published in those two issues, so it has covered the entire year. Looking at the journal's archive, until 2016, this journal published almost entirely material by Czech authors; mostly dealing with Czech-related subjects, and almost entirely written in Czech, often without even an English abstract . Considering the Scopus coverage criteria [2], it would not possibly have met them in those years. The journal is now apparently trying for a broader audience. According to the Scopus title list [3] , coverage is ongoing. I do not know why the Scopus previews link said otherwise. Their documentation is not known for consistency. It would be premature to say discontinued until there are 2018 published issues Scopus does not cover , or it appears on the (very interesting ) Scopus discontinued list : [4] Or, of course, if there are no 2018 issue after another year or so. Since they are publishing each issue as a special topic issue, it's hard to predict publication dates.
- In general, as you know, I take a much broader view of journal notability than you. This one may be borderline. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks David, for that detailed analysis. I missed that there was simply no 2018 issue yet to index. Given that it is indexed by Scopus, I'm going to dePROD it. As for my more restrictive stand on journal notability: I try to maintain clear objective criteria, it is often difficult enough to get people to accept to keep journals that clearly meet NJournals... --Randykitty (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Wednesday Salon Introduction[edit]
I'd very much like to meet you tonight. Vyeh (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Kaplan Test Prep draft page[edit]
Hello, I recently submitted a new article draft for Kaplan Test Prep, which was declined with the note: “Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Kaplan Inc. instead.”
I’d like to ask you to review this again based on the information provided below.
As you can see in the Graham Holdings Company template (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Graham), there are actually 9 existing Wikipedia articles under the Kaplan, Inc. section, all of which are about business units of Kaplan, Inc. A new Kaplan Test Prep article would be the 10th in this series, as Kaplan, Inc. is the parent company of Kaplan Test Prep.
(FYI, Graham Holdings Company is the parent company of Kaplan, Inc.)
This follows the widespread and generally accepted practice of separate Wikipedia articles posted for significant business units of large companies. Just a few examples include:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Renewable_Energy, a division of General Electric
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Lighting, another division of General Electric
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Bottling_Shqip%C3%ABria, a subsidiary of Coca-Cola
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Digital_Audio_Disc_Corporation, a manufacturer of Sony discs
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_Entertainment_Store, a closed chain of stores owned by Viacom
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_Language_Tests, a unit of Pearson PLC group (another education company)
To make it clear for readers that Kaplan Test Prep and its parent company Kaplan, Inc. are not the same, I’ve added several sentences to the Kaplan Test Prep draft:
- Kaplan Test Prep is a unit of global education company Kaplan, Inc., which also includes Kaplan Higher Education and Kaplan International.
- In 1985, The Washington Post Company (now Graham Holdings Company) bought the company from Stanley Kaplan. In 1994, Jonathan Grayer was appointed CEO and led the expansion of Kaplan into other educational areas beyond test preparation, such as higher education and English language programs, forming the educational services corporation of Kaplan, Inc. in 2000.
- Kaplan Test Prep today operates as the test prep arm of Kaplan Inc.
It would be great to get any feedback about how to improve the article further. Thank you! MT wKaplan (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- As I see you are working on several Kaplan articles, I'll try to give a comprehensive answer. For clarity anfd general visibility, I am going to place my response on the talk page of the main Kaplan Inc. article. (There's a sense in which the Graham Holdings articles might be seen as the main article, but the corporation is too diversified for that to be meaningful.)
- But there is a preliminary matter,which I can best mention here. it is important to distinguish whether you are directly an employee of the company, or an independent contractor or employee of a PR firm working for the company; if it's the latter there are additioanl disclosures to be made--see WP:PAID. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)