User talk:DGG/Archive 164 Sep. 2020

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

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

ARCA-pseudoscience[edit]

Hi, there's something I wanted to clarify for the Arbitration report for next issue of The Signpost. At ARCA-Pseudoscience, you have posted a somewhat more lengthy rationale for why the community needs to decide what pseudoscience is. It's hard for me to tell if this is agreeing with the other arbs, or if you are trying to take your approach? Or maybe it's all overcome by events by the last post by GW? Can you help with my confusion? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in preparation--this is extremely important to me, and I want to check what I have written and post it tomorrow afternoon. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bri, as may be evident from that page, my views have changed somewhat in the course of discussion; I cannot write the extended essay I had hoped to here without much more time to think, and consideration of the consequences and interrelationships, but my current positions as an arb is that
1. Arb com deals only with behavior. Arb com can not determine which POVs are acceptable, or what POVs are mainstream.
2 I consider that the original pseudoscience discussion was fundamentally erroneous insofar as it attempted to deal with content, and similarly are all subsequent arb com decisions in the area
3. Arb com can determine how we conduct discussions, and when to remove troublemakers, but it can not do so on the basis of the positions they take on content. It can not declare in what fields WP considers certain positions to be correct. For example, it cannot say how WP can treat topics that may be called pseudoscience, except by insisting that people who obstruct discussion in this or any other area must be removed.
4. So in terms of the question asked, we as arbs are not entitled to say this particular field is pseudoscience, and we as arbs were never so entitled to say this about any fields whatsoever.
5 The community itself cannot declare that certain views are pseudoscience. It can only report whether they are called so by reliable sources, and it must take into account all relevant positions. This is the basic principle of NPOV, which neither the committee nor arb com can ignore. The community can determine the details of how NPOV is to be interpreted, but it is a content rule, so arb com cannot.
6. It is my opinion that the effect of declaring how WP can handle certain fields, by using Discretionary sanctions, encourages and perpetuates bias. As it works at present, rather than destroying cliques it facilitates them, by giving an inordinately strong first-mover advantage. There is not now any basis for using DS at all, in this or any other subject. It encourages people to use their bias, and makes it too difficult to stop them. It may not have been completely wrong for arb com to use DS in an earlier stage of WP, as an attempt to deal with "unblockable" editors, but this is not a problem at present, at least not in the same fashion.
7 Arb com can change the rules for conduct in an area under disruption, but only if it does it in a content-neutral way. It can for example make a field subject to 2RR, or 1RR. It can remove specific troublemakers from a discussion, or from a field, or from WP., or warn that the rules for conduct in a given field or a given discussion will be interpreted strictly, and do so in a way that makes it very difficult to appeal. These are dangerous powers, for it could do so in such a way as to selectively help one of two contending sides, and in my opinion it has done just that in some decisions. But at least it requires an agreement of a majority of the individual arbs to do so. Discretionary sanctions allows any of the individual admins to do the same, while making it almost as difficult to appeal as to appeal an arb com decision. This is too dangerous. It is possible that 8 out of 15 arbs may be biased, knowingly or not. It is inevitable that some one of 500 admins will be biased.
8. One of the responsibilities of arb com is the supervision of the actions of arbitrators, and if the committee thinks that they have been making decisions in a way that effectuates bias rather than NPOV, the committee is entitled to take action. This again is a dangerous power, for it might, and in some cases has, been used unfairly. But it remains a necessary function, and the committee must do it until some fairer scheme can be devised.
I have refused on that page to give my personal opinion of Ayurvedic medicine. I do have one. Its current practical application is pseudoscientific, but we must make allowances for cultural bias. It seems unlikely a priori that we are the only civilization on earth that understands the world correctly. Its practitioners think they are using theory based science validated by experience. The same is true for Western European medicine as practiced until about the mid 19th century: physicians thought they were using theory-based science validated by experiment and experience. In both cases, their theories were wrong , their experimental methods crude, and their ability to analyze experience inadequate--and their treatments correspondingly irrational and generally ineffective. In its historical aspect, ayurvedic medicine made no less sense than sense than any other any premodern medical theory,.
In our articles on ayurveda, the historical aspects would in my opinion would more clearly be treated separately from the current practice. In my opinion our repeated emphasis in our articles, especially the lead of the main article, that ayruveda is considered a pseudoscience is excessive, and indicates bias rather than NPOV. A proper statement is appropriate, but the present orientation of the entire article gives the reader the impression we are not actually a NPOV encyclopedia. (And I think we have made the same error in other subjects.) I would say these things in a discussion on the relevant talk page, except that I think that the mere fact that I'm an arb would affect the discussion.. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treading on your toes[edit]

I've just now declined Draft:Ann Thomson -- and immediately thereafter noticed that you said you'd accept it. I sense that the biographee is noteworthy; if you were to overrule me, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His work is in major museums, and there are references for that, which is why I accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Iván Enrique Rodríguez[edit]

Dear DGG, I am buildng a collection of the contemporary Puerto Rican composers to add to Wikipedia. This was my first article. Could you help me make it better?--MahlerLover (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahlerLover (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC) When I built the article I was following the way Robert Beaser's article was made.--MahlerLover (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:DGG I edited the article. Please let me know if it satisfy your expectations. If not, please let me know in a more specific way. Thanks so much! MahlerLover (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MahlerLover, I added a note to the draft. It's better, but there's still no major performance or recording. It may be too early in his career, but I will leaveit for others to review. This is afield of interest to me, but not expertise. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG Thanks so much for your comment! I truly appreciate your knowledgeable insight a lot! I do believe your opinion in relationship to the WP:Composer: criteria needs to be addressed within the 21st century understanding of the White Frame and systemic discrimination of composers of color in classical music. For a “major orchestra” (whatever that means, as the orchestras mentioned have yearly budgets of over 14M dollras) to consider a composer of color is inherently harder If not almost impossible due to the structure of the white frame and diversity-negating status of the system. So, when considering this article and the national and international achievements (such as the historic Cabrillo Festival of Contemporary Music) of this composer as well as the other composers of color that I intend to write articles about, has to be understood within a place of deep knowledge of race and anti-racism. Thanks again for everything! I’ve learned a lot! MahlerLover (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,, MahlerLover, Ido understand the situation. The solution within WP is to make sure first that we do have articles on those individuals from other geographies who most clearly meat the conventional criteria, before trying to convince WPedians to include others. I have always been in favor of flexibility here, but the best strategy is to work from the top. If you think I haven't taken this enough into account, the way to proceed is to build up the article as strongly as possible and then resubmit. Let me know. I will do what I can to help you, but remember that I'm not the judge--the community at an AfD is the final judge, and all I can do is predict. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Danny Kabakibo[edit]

Dear DGG, This is the second article of mine that you have declined. The first was about Katya Cengel (a female author from the biographies needing done list). I re-wrote that article but it has not yet been re-reviewed. So I wanted to work on a new one, I thought I would try a different type of person, so a man from s technologies list. I thought I did what you had instructed. I used all very known reliable outside resources. I wrote about him and not his accolades. I am confused as to what I am doing wrong. Can you please help me understand what the problem is?

people become notable because of their accomplishments, and tthe article needs to be focussed around their accomplishments. This article, however, is focused around his youthful hobbies and opinions. He has since created a software application, bu tthere is no indication tha it is an important invention or hat it is in significant use. Sources showing notability must be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Most of the sources here, 1,2, 3,5, 7, an 8, although they may look like newspapers, aren't. They are PR outlets,. Their stories are entirely based upon what the person chooses to say about themselves. to see this more clearly, look at some of the other stories in the publication. You will find none which are genuine news accounts under editorial control. References 6 and 9 are geneuine news publications. However, their stories about him are exactly the same as the PR in the straightforward PR publications--they're just what he says about himself. News sources in all countries do this: they print press release as well as actual news, and the profession of PR is in large part devoted to placing these stories. One way to see this is to look at the extravagant claims made--if they were genuine, there would be real news accounts in major newspapers about his accomplishments, Another is to compare the accounts--they ar almost identical, including even the headlines. They're all modifications of the same press handout.

In general, taking topics from the list of desired articles needs to be done carefully--anyone may place a topic there. Since PR writers know that if they write the WP articles directly, they will find the articles rejected and be banned as undeclared paid editors, this has become a common trick for inducing good-faith wikipedians to do the work for free. But the results are indistinguishable from paid editing. The best way of finding topics is list prepared for editathons, or based on genuine news accounts that you see yourself. Before you start, make sure you have at least 2, and better 3, excellent reliable independent sources from books by major publishers or major magazines or newspapers with national coverage. You will also find list of desired articles at the various Wikiproject pages. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cengal may be notable , but the article didn't show it, and neither does your revision. Notability for a reporter is very difficult to demonstrate unless they win an individual pulitzer or something equally important. Notability for an author is much easier--it depends on the reviews, and the first indication of whether there are likely to be substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads The article didn't give it , but I should have looked further. The books are mostly from University of Nebraska Press, or one of its subimprints, which is a very good sign. I shall now add this information to the article. The place to find the information is WorldCat. Of the places where you took the reviews. none is amjor publication, such as the NYT book review. Pacific Standard is an online environmental magazine, and is the best of them--see our article on it--not that despite what out article says, it is still active--I shall have to update it . NY Journal of books is of undetermined reliability(--it is not New aYork Review of Books, a magazine of very high prestige. ). Judging by its Web site [1]. we need an article on it. The article needs to focus on her as an author, not a journalist. To some degree, the nuber of copies of books in worldcat libraries can indicate significance, tho its not a formal criterion for notability . I made a start at that, and accepted it. You will find listings fro additional reviewsof her books in Worldcat, and there is some material to find a reference for. And check the exact name of the field in which she received a degree. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The basic skill for you to acquire is to be careful and skeptical about results found on Google. You need to read them, and find out about the publication they are coming from. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you very much for your response. You gave me exactly the information I was looking for and I am sure I can improve both articles. I really appreciate your time. I would also appreciate very much if you could take a look at another draft of mine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Josh_Clarke_(American_football) I would rather improve it now than later after it is declined. Again, thanks so much for your answer, it helped a lot! I am very new, so I have no doubt I have plenty to learn here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJSPN (talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiJSPN, in some fields I know just enough to be aware that I should stay clear of them to avoid foolish blunders, and sports is one of them. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you- I did find an answer to that. It is simply too soon. I am working on bettering the references for the Cengel page and possibly trying again with the Kabakibo page IF I can find good references or maybe something totally new. I appreciate all of your help so much!WikiJSPN (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Draft:Scott Waldman and pending acceptance[edit]

Hi DGG, thanks for your revision of Draft:Scott Waldman. I wonder if you have the capacity to accept/decline the article and move it to mainspace if accepted. Regards. Neuralia (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For your views and works, happy to read your user page. Rahulsomantalk - contribs 23:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Removed because concern was answered elsewhere[edit]

Seeking advice[edit]

I am sure you have plenty to do without answering my questions, but you are the only one I know to ask. Obviously, I did something way worse than just write a bad article, but I am unaware of what I did. You declined my articles and I wanted to improve them and ask questions. I thought that was the right thing to do, I thought I was asking my questions in the right places, but apparently I was not (part of why I am coming to ask you now). I really like Wikipedia, I use it all the time. I just wanted to help and to add something- to contribute. I get that I messed up and used the wrong sources. I really didn't mean to. I really didn't mean to pick bad people to try and write about. I thought the lists I had found had been vetted, as to the first two, and the football player, I had looked for information on and couldn't find a wikipage, so I thought I would share what I had. I never meant to offend anyone or step on toes. If there is some unwritten rule about who can and can't make pages about what or who, I didn't know! There are at least two other people here that have left me pretty harsh messages- not fair criticism and explanation like yours, but sarcasm and clear annoyance. I can tell that, obviously, I did something that offended these people. I wanted to make a contribution to something that I cared about, something I could be proud of, and I am left feeling like crap like I should not have even tried. I deleted my drafts, obviously, my making them was a huge part of what I did wrong- but why? When we are supposed to be bold and ask questions, how did I go so wrong in doing that, that I have caused people to dislike me? Any advice would help, and I am sorry for bothering you with my problems, but I really wanted to be here. Also, if I need to delete my Katya Cengel page to make this ill will stop, I will gladly do so, I just wasn't sure how to or I already would have. WikiJSPN (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)JSPN [reply]


Also, though, thank you for your explanations and honest criticism. I didn't realize there was this huge issue with paid editors or undeclared editors and all of that, so I had no idea what I was doing that looked so wrong. Fortunately, it has been explained and I really am sorry I had a rough start at picking subjects and learning about references. I promise, I was not just trying to make your job harder! I have removed my drafts, and while I may try at them later on, I will do so with much better references, or not at all. I will take all you said into consideration and continue to try and improve on the Cengel article (I have enlisted help with that as well). I am not a paid undeclared editor. I want to be here and help. I hope you can see I just started on the wrong foot and give me a chance to redeem myself a bit. WikiJSPN (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN[reply]

Fine. Unfortunately, the prevalence of promotional editing, not yjust on WP,but in theworld in general, tends to lead new editor sinto writing according to whatthey have mostly seen, which is promotionalism . I try to distinguish, but I have made mistakes in both directions, and know of no infallible guide for this. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
as one of our conventions, please never remove material, even your own, from someone else's talk page, or from an article or discussion page. If you wish to withdraw it, the usual method is to enclose it in <s> </s> tags,which I have just done. Not having it there are makes it harder to follow the discussion for anybody later , so I am restoring it. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, just trying not to waste time or be redundant. WikiJSPN (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN[reply]

Robert Peckham (historian)[edit]

Hello. I'm curious as to why you moved Robert Peckham (historian) to article space. It had, and still has, zero independent sources, albeit a plausible claim to baseline notability. Books written by the subject aside, the personal biographical details are completely unsourced, and the article creator's edit history seems to be nearly entirely based on the Peckham family. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC) He has written 3 books published by respectable academic presses, one of them being Cambridge University Press.That makes him notable as an academic.The publications are independent sources. They are not given in standard format, but I never decline an article for that. His key achievements as such as adequately sourced. The routine facts of his education are not, but probably could be easily enough from a CV, which we accept as sourcing for such unexceptional material. I will accept or write an article about anyone who publishes a book by CUP. The time to do the remainder of the fixing is in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created a Page for Atsuhiro Osuka[edit]

Sir, Created a page for Prof. Atsuhiro Osuka. He is a academic scientist working in the field of chemistry. So please go through it. Kindly spare some time for this article if possible. Any improvements further needed in language or content please let me know. Waiting for reply Rahulsomantalk - contribs 21:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see the draft for my advice. I put it there so others will see it also. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
updated based on your comments sir. Given reply to comments in talk session of Draft:Atsuhiro_Osuka. Rahulsomantalk - contribs 13:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the draft will be reviewed r in the ordinary course of events within the next month or two . If I reviewed on request, it would be unfair to everyone else. ButI shall give it another look tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of International Cricket Centuries by Tom Latham[edit]

Hi there if I create a link to the page you declined (title) on the page Tom Latham will the page you declined then be accepted? question by User: FinzUp19.

FinzUp19, I see no reason why it cannot be integraed into the main article on him. But another reviewer might feel differently; no one admin here makes the final decision. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:46:41, 30 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Legalife103[edit]


Hi there! Thanks for reviewing my article drafe. Can you please give me some tips on how to improve it? I did find external sources and not just press releases and added them to the entry. What else can I do in your opinion? I tried to create this entry as simple as possible (only facts, backed by external links).

Thanks! Legalife103 (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legalife103 (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked aagain; the problems are just the same--see my note on the draft. Frankly, there's nothing further I think it likely that you can do to get this accepted. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piper D. Griffin[edit]

Greetings. Twinkle must have had a hiccup with your AfD nom here, because no discussion page was created. Thanks. --Finngall talk 21:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Finngall, it happens when it encounters any non-standard sequence of doing things.But rather than correcting it, I thought again:

I had started to list this for AfD, on the basis that her current position is not notable. However, this is now the beginning of September, and she is the nominee of a major political party for an election in early November that might change this compeltely. I have therefore decided to hold off nominating for AfD. That need not of course inhibit anyone else who might wish to do so. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


1,2,3-Benzothiazole[edit]

I'm not sure that it was wise to accept 1,2,3-Benzothiadiazole as created by User:Nihaal The Wikipedian. A number of more experienced editors including User:Graeme Bartlett, User:DMacks and myself have been trying to encourage him following his first submission of methyl hexanoate and 2,1,3-Benzothiadiazole but he has been fairly unresponsive to our suggestions (see his talk page and that for Graeme). In particular, he does not seem to grasp the concept of WP:RS and persists in using Pubchem as a reference rather than drilling down to the actual sources required. In a number of other ways he has shown naivety, for example in applying for adminship "here". — basically trying to run before he can walk. We must indeed encourage youthful enthusiasm but not, I think, to the point where it repeatedly creates poor articles. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are probably right, that the general concept of notability of chemical compounds would be better tested with a stronger article. I'm going to reconsider tonorrow. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. As a matter of fact, I think that the compound in question probably will be notable enough. It's just that the new article doesn't yet do it justice by showing this and I'd like Nihaal to learn how to get it to that state. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull:..I am in support of Michael`s comment as source number 3 tells more about these chemicals and also how effective it is.Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so what do people wnat me to do: return to draft for improvement, or to let someone else improve it. I cannot present do the work myself. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihaal The Wikipedian:I think it would be best to return to draft for improvement and let Nihaal work further on it, with further advice from me and others if he needs it. I certainly don't think you need to personally get involved with editing it. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done. I leavethe rest to you. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Submission of Draft[edit]

I have removed promotional words in this Draft: Amina Namadi Sambo, sir I would think it can be submitted as the submitted bottom were disabled by you Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • CHECK

Editing news 2020 #4[edit]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool[edit]

The number of comments posted with the Reply Tool from March through June 2020. People used the Reply Tool to post over 7,400 comments with the tool.

The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.

  • More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
  • Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
  • Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[2]

The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).

The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.

Next: New discussion tool[edit]

Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 17[edit]

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past two months (July and August 2020).

Stay safe --DannyS712 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request[edit]

Hey! You may remember me from about a year ago (or not) as you weighed in on a dispute that I was involved in. But anyway, something similar is going on again, and an account I believe to be a sock has filed a report against me. I would ususally be happy to wait my turn in line, but the guy I believe the sock belongs to is doing some extrememly' tendatous editing, and dealing with it has become a massive burden on my time. If I'm right about the identity of the sock, this could spare us all a lot of headache. The investigation can be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiman2718. Thanks either way.

ps. My terrible internet connection is having trouble with your massive talk page when in edit mode. I don't mean to tell you how to manage your own page, but if you would archive some stuff that would make it easier for those of us with super-slow internet to use it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer work with checkuser; though I have the userright, it is best left to the experts who use it regularly. . My impression about the articles on the various forms of psychological therapies is that every one of them was primarily written by an enthusiast; if I dealt with it, I would want to deal with them all, but this is too much for me; I'm primarily dealing with paid editing these days.
With all the people going back to college online, many internet systems have had problems in many parts of the country. The only way to deal with pages like mine is to edit only a section. Asfor fixing the page, I haveall my life had a problem with that kind of organization. I apologize, but it is difficult to find the clear week or two it would take to sort things out, and its something I hate doing. But now its a new month, I usually do at least a little cleanup, so thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I completely understand that you are busy, and I hope the experts can clean this up. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020). 

:added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration 

}}

UPE[edit]

I emailed arbcom already but re:this, this is very easily proven UPE. Praxidicae (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

right, and I' trying to find and list everything from that now-banned ed. including drafts ,etc. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the history of Draft:Nini Amerlise which was recreated by this user at User:Rohishaw1999/sandbox. Probably two different UPE farms based on their Freelancer profile, but all paid nonetheless. Praxidicae (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Robert Charles Hider[edit]

I'm probably missing something blindingly obvious, but what is 'ck'? Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my abbreviation for check--that the article will be need checking for references , in this case for the awards, for if they can be verified he is notable , . I should ideally have done then and there, but I'm trying to work as fast a possible to screen all the G13s about to be deleted at 6 months to se what I can rescue--generally out of a page of 200 , and ignoring the ones in sports and popular culture where I know too little to judge, I can rescue 3 or 4, and mark another 3 or 4 for checking later. I'm experimenting with various ways of marking them.
But yes, this time I was a little too cryptic. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, should have been able to work that out! I think that one is a possible save but have not got around to looking more closely. Sports though... much easier! Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple of refs to the honours section; not necessarily very good ones. Could not find anything for thr other items and 'Fellow Royal Chemistry Society' may not carry the kudos it might be thought it would, judging by their website. Best. Eagleash (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added some of the citation figures, which are high enough to demonstrate hre's an authority in his field. Thearticle, of course,, would have to be thoroughly rewrittenm which I may do, but not right now. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jedlica[edit]

This AfD has not actually been created yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matvey Lykov[edit]

Hi DGG, can you undelete this article? I had reviewed the content before its deletion and it appeared appropriate for mainspace in my opinion. Note that blocking of a user is not a listed reason among Wikipedia:Deletion policy (although I am aware that this seems to have become practice). SFB 18:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is literally listed as a policy under WP:CSD#G5. Praxidicae (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the article is also, as would be expected from an undeclared paid editor , considerably more promotional than others in the same category. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Hughes[edit]

Hello, DGG Can, you, please, detail which parts of the article are problematic? Given the chance, I'd like to improve once I find more time. I'd appreciate it if you can indicate it more clearly. Thank you--Ovensmugs (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_164_Sep._2020&oldid=998756835"