User talk:DGG/Archive 168 Jan. 2021

Help with amending draft for Draft:Cerus_Corporation[edit]

Hi, I have some questions about your comment on my draft for Draft:Cerus_Corporation. Thanks for your time in helping me get it right.

You ask to remove every reference that is a press release. I removed five such references. I believe all the remaining primary source references are strictly focused on very simple datapoints as listed below. Are these press releases acceptable uses for minor claims like these?

Date company was conceived and subsequent company name change from Cerus Technologies to Cerus Corporation (SEC 10-K filing)
Revenue amount in 2019 (I removed all other BusinessWire refs)
Employee head count in 2019 (Bloomberg - I can remove the second usage of Bloomberg ref in favor of other supporting sources)
Establish Dr Corash and Dr Hearst as the founders (both US News and SEC S-1 - I can drop one of these, which is more acceptable to keep?)
Cross licensing deal with Baxter Medical which got Cerus into the EU (Memphis Business Journal and Infection Control Today - is the latter acceptable I can remove the former)
still working on identifying remaining claims only documented in the FDA-released medical labels supplied by Cerus, for which I don't have other acceptable references

The two references that previously said simply from "Associated Press" have been updated to reflect the archived hard copy newspapers where they were published (Gettysburg Times and Tuscaloosa News). Are these consider sufficient news outlets to keep these references? If not, is there a documented definition in Wikipedia that separates a "major" newspaper from the others?

I am still working on addressing Nightenbelle's concern about REFBOMB. To be fair, all the refs are at then end of each passage, and each passsage uses all the assigned refs. I am trying to be careful and thorough because medical topics have a higher bar. I would like to continue culling refs but I really need to know which remaining refs are completely barred versus which refs are simply raising an eyebrow -- it might be the latter refs are underpinning only minor additions where I could not find those additions in any other medical journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazierjason (talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes you can use primary references for such uncontroversial data points. But it's better if they can be gotten from an official document, like a US 990. . The pt of REFBOMB is that if you have a strong ref for something ,there's no point in having weak refs for the same point also.

Thanks for this clarification. US IRS 990 forms are only intended for tax exempt (e.g. nonprofit) orgs, while publicly traded companies must publish the SEC forms. They seem equally "official" to me; the company/org publishes these primary sourced tax documents to the govt for public dissemination, attesting they are factual and complete. It's up to the IRS or SEC if they want to audit the truthiness of these forms. If there are other kinds of commonly disclosed US or EU govt forms from public companies that are more acceptable to WP, I'd be happy to search if you can give me a form name. Frazierjason (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shall check the draft in a day or two. Please have patience--we've been running an online editathon in NYC and I'm somewhat behind. (And this is the weekend of the annual Modern Language Association meeting--online this year--I'm trying to catch as much of it as I can and use some for WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frazierjason As for the government forms, I said carefully "for example" For US public companies, of course its the SEC forms, and we generally use the annual Form 10-K/ They contain financial statements; they also contain descriptions of the business, Management statements, & forward-looking projections, as our article explains. The most part is the independent auditor's report, We do accept the numbers on them. (though we also know that interpreting the meaning of these numbers is an art, and needs an expert secondary source) -- Anyway I wasn't suggesting you not use them, but that you should use them. . More later DGG ( talk ) 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)\[reply]

Frazierjason, I commented further at the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rt Rana[edit]

Hello Dear DGG , I expanded it a bit and made it more respectable. What do you think about it ? I think it's quite close to wikipedia level. Rajuiu (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have made it considerably worse by restoring unsourced promotional material, such as the "Notable Lines", and still using totally unreliable sources such as twitter , pinterest, and youtube DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry DGG Draft:Rt Rana content was removed by ip user so that restored

and now i accepted your comments and removed some promotional material unreliable sources thanks Rajuiu (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are still using sources like youtube and goodreads. I don't think he's likely to be notable, so there's no point in my looking at it further . DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. dear DGG he is notable announcer in srilanka and he is doing official government notable announcing programs such as india and srilaka government official programs . thanks Rajuiu (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has its own concept of notability , which is that the person has to be notable enough to be substantially discussed by multiple independent reliable sources. The sources are all either just notices, or were written by him or his employer. Wikipedia's use of the word sometimes does, and sometimes does not, correspond to the much more general way the word is used in the real world. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Emily Tamkin[edit]

Thanks for reviewing. Draft:Emily Tamkin

First, neither I nor the author are the subject of the article nor do we know her — you suspected that it was written by the subject. Solved.

Second, you found the article to be promotional in nature. I deleted some parts, added others, and re-arranged it. The text had a bit of a light tone which I also thought was unsuitable so amended that.

Can I include these two sentences? They are a little lighthearted, but notable sources and informative, what do you think?

She learned Yiddish during the COVID-19 pandemic.[2] https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/06/learning-yiddish-language-pandemic-classes-lockdown

Tamkin has a dog named Shiloh who occasionally makes interview appearances. As of 2019, she had a boyfriend.[11] https://www.cjr.org/first_person/diary-laid-off-buzzfeed-reporter.php

What are you thoughts on the article now? Thanks.

Matriarch-info (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP makes great effort to be as stogy as old-fashioned encyclopedias. The more personal anecdotes , the more it looks like autobio or COI or promotionalism

If she's notable, it would be as an author. She has one book. The VOA interview is promotional . The Times of Israel article is not a review, but a promotional interview. A promotional interview is one where the interviewer asks leading questions, and the author talks about themself, saying whatever they care to. Kirkus is a borderline source. The article says she's writing another book. Try again when it's published, and gets reviews. Real reviews. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Edmund Goble[edit]

Yet another questionably notable academic. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

from his web site, 1 book, 4 articles. Not usually enough. I'll watch for the afd

Amanda Brock draft[edit]

Hi DGG, thank you for your comment on my draft page of Amanda Brock (current CEO of OpenUK) - I myself am not affiliated with OpenUK, but my company is partly, I have declared this and done my best to write from a completely neutral perspective (this is my first time writing a Wikipedia page, so apologies if it's not perfect) and to include as many citations as I could. I was just wondering if maybe you'd be able to have another look at it, or possibly give pointers as to how it could be improved to get approved? Thanks! Amurphy79 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC) A.Murphy[reply]

I reviewed it , trying to explain in a little more detail. It is extremely difficult to write a properly NPOV encyclopedic biography as a connected contributor. It's not the number of citations, but their quality, and , in particular, whether they are dryly independent of the subject. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have saw and tried to improve upon your corrections, thank you for your time and patience, i'm trying to ensure it doesn't get deleted/can hopefully be approved. Will keep trying to improve. Amurphy79 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharecare article assistance[edit]

Hello DGG! I work with Sharecare and am helping flag appropriate updates to the article (Reaching out instead of making the edit myself in keeping with Wikipedia Terms of Use & conflict of interest rules). Do you have a moment to review my request at Talk:Sharecare? It remains unanswered though I included the edit request template and have posted to a few relevant WikiProjects.

I saw that you're among previous contributors to the current article, so I thought this could be of interest to you. Any feedback you may have will be welcome. Thanks for any consideration. Thanks! SCbhaynes (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

commented there. The best thing to do with the new sections might be to abridge it, using only the necessary refs. DGG ( talk ) 11:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Miss Grand[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Miss Grand. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Paul_012 (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

perfectly reasonable. I found I could not think of anything better than my earlier suggestion. DGG ( talk ) 11:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove advert template[edit]

Hi! In August 2018 you applied the Advert template to Concord Law School. In the intervening time, the page has undergone significant edits by users not associated with the school, and with the aid of a couple Requested Edits, I've been able to integrate additional external references/source documents. Most recently, on January 10, 2021, the editor who reviewed my latest COI edit request also took a pass at removing remaining promotional language on the page. For these reasons, could you take a look and see if the advert template can be lifted from the page? Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will check in a few days. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Sosnovskiy Leonid[edit]

Dear DGG, I ask for help in finalizing the draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Leonid_Adamovich_Sosnovskiy. I corrected most of the comments, in particular, I deleted unnecessary and superfluous details in Professional employment and Scientific activities, awards, etc. But the article was again rejected. Please help bring it up to the standards of the English Wikipedia so that the article will be accepted. Barejsha02 (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have consulted the Physics wikiproject on this one. I am not going to approve it unless the consensus there is that he is notable, and even then it would probably need very major rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tammy L. Kernodle[edit]

Hi DGG. Thanks so much for your feedback on Draft:Tammy L. Kernodle.

1. Refs are needed for the facts of her bio, but the sort of refs that establish notability by GNG are not required to WP:PROF.

I believe all of the facts in the bio are referenced according to the work that supports those facts.

2. The publications go only in the list, they do not need references; they reference themselves.

I corrected this.

3. Notability would be very strongly aided by book reviews of her book: look for them and add them as references.

I added part of Sherrie Tucker's review of Kernodle's book with citation.

4. The first paragraph in the lede is enough for the lede. The second goes later, under Professional activities.

I fixed this.

5. Being quoted as an expert has limited value--a few key ones are enough.

I included JSFarman's references as the final paragraph in the "Career" section.

Do you have any further suggestions before resubmitting? Would you be willing to check formatting at this point?

Most gratefully, SyLvRuUz (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to check for additional reviews. And be careful about using selected quotes from reviews--it can seem like cherry-picking--everyone who write a review ofa book always includes something laudatory about hte author, no matter what they may go on to say later. (as I know, for I've written over a hundred for Choice and elsewhere) I'd put that quote into the footnote using the quote= parameter of the cite template, not the text. And never use external references in the text.--they make it look as if someone who does not yet have an article does already have one--if you think the person notable enough that there should be an article, use the ordinary internal link, it will show up in red. I'll check in a few days. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this feedback, and for your patience. I think I've addressed all of your concerns with my revisions. Let me know if you find it fit to resubmit when you next check. Or is it pro forma to resubmit without asking an editor? Again, thanks for your patience with a new contributor. Gratefully and with the utmost respect, SyLvRuUz (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong section[edit]

Is this meant to be in the ===Survey=== section? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thanks for catching it -- I just moved it. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing news 2021 #1[edit]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool[edit]

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[1]
The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[2] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
A large A/B test will start soon.[3] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool[edit]

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[4] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications[edit]

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

Goat

Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 42[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

New EBSCO collections now available
1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
Library Card input requested
Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crest Capital[edit]

FYI. I've asked the requesting editor to make the improvements quick-fast, maybe this time next week can have another look and renom if required? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback - New Editor need help with article[edit]

Article was re-drafted but the review comments state article reads like manual. Article isn't manual, it provides factual information as an encyclopedia topic. Do you have suggestions on how to correct article?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWTNP (talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC) --AWTNP (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gather this is about Articles for creation: Tip Reporting . Try to make it sound less like an IRS help page; it should contain only material of interest to the general reader, not information only relevant to those who might need to know how to report tips to the US IRS -- and , if you are going to only discuss the US, say so.

Specifically, it shouldn't refer to all the detailed IRS publications in the text, just the key ones--a list of relevant publications can be given as a part of the External Links section. . State the rules in plain language, not IRS-jargon, and certainly not in plain language and also in the IRS jargon. It has to be worded so nobody would think this is specific tax advice, because WP does not give legal advice.

If you can find references that are not government publications, use them also.

AWTNP, I hope this helps . DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Thank you for your help. If you don't mind, I will make some edits and reach out again for you to review. Thanks. AWTNP (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARB cases[edit]

DGG, I have a question. I've been watching this ARB case [[5]] and I would like to add my 2cents. The problem is, I'm really not sure what the process is. At a normal ANI or similar I would just present my own arguments (evidence+analysis) or comments on the same made by others. I really don't understand where I might put such comments in an ARC discussion. Is there an appropriate place to talk about the evidence presented by others? Same with a question of can I post a general comment. Thanks for any suggestions. Springee (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you do understand that my term on arb com has ended, and although I had an option to continue for hearing this case, I chose not to? You would do better to ask one of the Case clerks: Guerillero or Moneytrees or Cthomas3. If you do as they suggest, you'll be safer. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I do. I assumed since you aren't on the current committee it would be better to ask you as it couldn't be considered trying to go around the committee or attempting to sway favor. If we think of this as a legal case, I'm the person with no legal training who wants to say something to the judge in a way that the court will allow. If you think one of the clerks is the way to go I'm happy to do that. Springee (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSFAQ2[edit]

I adapted the top half of your close at WP:BIRDCON into a new lead section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style extended FAQ, though this took some juggling of text around, and some massaging to replace redundant phrasing, plus some tweaks for clarity, and some links. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jared_Roach[edit]

DGG, thanks for your input last year. Could you take another look at Draft:Jared_Roach and see if I have addressed your concerns? Thanks, Jared. Jaredroach (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

commented at the draft. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential IP sockpuppet of blocked user[edit]

Hi DGG. I'm wondering if you could help out with a possible sockpuppet situation please:

As part of WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonny_Solina/Archive#31_December_2020, Aerosol-Aerosol and 87.3.214.132 were blocked. Another IP has popped up at two of the articles since (Antica Dolceria Bonajuto and Comiso Airport), which I suspect is the same person now using another IP address. Would it be possible to get this IP address blocked too? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please list the ip at the sockpuppet investigation, to keep tings together. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft comment[edit]

Are you sure you left your comment on the draft in the right place? I'm not the one who created the draft, that was User:OctaviusIII. His draft was titled Draft:Creating List of unarmed African Americans killed by law enforcement officers in the United States which I simply moved to Draft:List of unarmed African Americans killed by law enforcement officers in the United States. JIP | Talk 18:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing it. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should leave your comment about the draft's content to User:OctaviusIII instead of me. I don't want to copy-paste it myself because I want OctaviusIII to know it's coming from you. JIP | Talk 15:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021[edit]

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

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid G4 deletion of Miss Grand[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure if you'd had the opportunity to note the contesting of the clearly invalid CSD tagging at Talk:Miss Grand, which explained why the article was in no way eligible for G4 speedy deletion, as all the content was newly written by me and in no way similar to the deleted article, the article was about a different subject from the deleted one, and was referenced to multiple reliable sources which easily demonstrate the notability of the subject. I had written this overview article about the entire franchise so that there would be an encyclopaedic entry to discourage the creation of cruft-filled fan articles. It's frustrating when not only do editors engage in careless drive-by CSD tagging, but admins also trigger-happily follow through with incorrect deletions. Please restore the article, and if you disagree on he subject's notability, take it to AfD. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the content was substantially similar enough that it did not meet the objections. It doesn't matter who wrote it. But I will look at it again in a day or two freshly, to check that I did not make an error. It is possible, however, that another AfD would settle the issue better than my speedy. (Unfortunately, I do not think it likely based on my experience here that the presence of the articlewould do anything but facilitate the creation of unjustified detailed articles.) DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very disconcerting that this is how an admin would interpret G4, which seems to be very much against the spirit of the policy in my reading. I await your self-review, but fully intend to take this to DRV or another venue for second opinion if no further action is forthcoming. Do let me know if you'd rather skip the wait and that I go ahead with it. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul 012, I said I would reconsider it. Please give me a chance to do so. If I'm in doubt, I may reinstate it and leave the speedy tag, which would let anoter admin decide.

Of course people sometimes appeal my decisions, and sometimes the community decides I was wrong. If I do not reinstate it, I'll explain the several available routes.

In practice , an admin can do nothing at all if they are afraid they might make a mistake, and if it would really upset them if someone said so. I tend to work with the more difficult fringe situations, so I expect that people will sometimes decide differently. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Callan - Draft[edit]

Hi DGG

I've updated the Robin Callan page. I've removed anything I think can be deemed "promotional" and included several more references to illustrate Robin Callans notability. His accomplishments are well respected throughout the language teaching world. Please can you help me to get this published. Robert Hercules (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look and do what I think is best for the encyclopedia. You will have noticed another very good reviewer thought the article on the Group was unencyclopedic and redirected it--I think it would be very unwise for either your or me to try to challenge this--looking at their comments, I probably was trying too hard to find a way to consider the article acceptable. . But because these are your only articles, and about 80% of the time someone repeatedly insistent on getting article son a topic like this does have a conflict of interest, I would like a response here or on your talk page to the question I asked on Dec 12. "the various changes and comments to me about the draft continue to raise the possibility of COI. -you said you are not being paid--you never said whether or not you work for the company or are, perhaps, editing with a coi in its interest." DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DGG – I was hesitant about redirecting a page you had accepted until I looked in detail at the sourcing, which in my view was not up to our standards. I had already moved the Robin Callan page to mainspace and redirected it to the page on the group/method. As it happens, this is a topic I know a little about – I was a TEFL teacher in the 1970s, and for an interminable year had to teach by the direct method, exclusively according to the ghastly-but-surely-notable New Concept English series by Louis George Alexander. Robert Hercules, I too look forward to a clear and complete disclosure of the nature of your conflict of interest in relation to Callan, his company and his method. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be a neighbour of Robin Callan and a great admirer of what he achieved. In my view the fact that he single-handedly created a language learning method that 60 years later is used all over the world, is a notable achievement.

When I left UK I studied Spanish with the Callan Method (so did my husband and several of my friends) and was highly impressed with the way it worked.

I am not being paid to write this page and indeed won't now be pursuing this any further. I am disappointed that Robin Callan's work is not considered worthy of an entry, nor the fact that he saved the most iconic institution in the Cambridge area from going under for no personal self-gain. So I will have to respect the view of your colleagues and I guess we will just have to beg to differ on that. Thanks for your help. Robert Hercules (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do accept your statement of coi--alumni and fans can sometimes have the same difficulties with NPOV as those whose coi is monetary.He should have an entry, provided it's NPOV. I am much less certain about whether the method or the organization should. People should know about the topic; the schools can do their own publicity. . DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after all the work you and I put in to arrive at an entirely neutral Callan Group page it is disappointing to say the least that this has now been withdrawn. It is not in any way intended to give publicity to schools. I am sure they all do their own thing. Your colleague commented that "it is just one man's variant of a Direct Method". This seems something of an understatement given that Callan Method is respected throughout the world and used in hundreds of schools in over 30 countries, some sixty years after Robin Callan created it. This is factual and I really cannot understand why it would not merit a Wikipedia entry. If the page on Robin Callan himself is deemed unworthy, so be it. What is required to reinstate the page that we agreed on in December? Robert Hercules (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes the work done in trying to save something turns out to not be worthwhile; I try to judge this before I start, but my judgment is not always correct. I am always trying to improve my skill at rescuing articles, and I have learnt from this one that I should have insisted on much more drastic revisions from the beginning I know it matters to you, and if I encouraged you unduly, I apologize. This is s why it is difficult to edit with any degree of coi: success here requires a considerable degree of detachment. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-Frank J.Manheim[edit]

Happy New Year DGG. I think the Frank Manheim article is ready to be put up for approval; what do you think? I dug into some books on investment banking over the holiday and found some interesting stuff on how (and how much) investment bankers get paid. But it will need more investigation and more thinking before it is ready to be added to Manheim's article. My thought is that, if the article is approved, some other editors who, perhaps, have a greater insight into investment banking than I, can make some supplementary edits. What do you think? Letita Bodicia (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes there's a good deal of interesting material, but much of it is not of interest to a general reader of an encyclopedia. Emphasise the notability--and the notability is as an investment banker, not the other activities. Then I'll go there and help you fix details. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again DGG. Thanks for putting up with me, but I’m pretty new at this. I’m trying to follow your suggestions but seem to be getting more confused. You said the material, although interesting, “… is not of interest to a general reader of an encyclopedia.” I’m having trouble understanding what is or is not of interest to an encyclopedia reader as I think the copy on Manheim the teacher, the publisher, the fox hunter and the author is interesting and rounds out Frank J. Manheim. Can you provide a specific example or two? You stated in the early going with the initial editor that “…Manheim is definitely notable and we should have an article.” How can we add more notability to his business career? Half the article is devoted to Manheim’s career as an investment banker – 800 out of 1,600 words. Unfortunately, the 1950s weren’t like the 2020s. People like Manheim did not blow their own horns on social media about their businesses and journals like the NYT didn't report on either the personalities or the ways businessmen made money in those days; everything was much more private. Anyway, I’m trying to put together something that will reflect well on Manheim and investment banker with a small nod to Manheim the person.

Another question: An editor named FloridaArmy, who has nothing listed on his user page, but who, as indicated on his talk page, does a lot of editing of Drafts, then submits them, submitted Frank J. Manheim yesterday. How does this affect what you and I are doing? Again, thanks for your patience; I hope I will become a good editor someday.Letita Bodicia (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a place where people in the general public can go to find basic information about peopleand things that are sufficiently notable that they will have heard of them. Just as we're not here to make someone notable initially, we're not hereto provide everything that might be interesting about a person to those who already know about him. That's the purpose of biographies, amnnd there are plenty of places to publish this material. I like full biographies of people I care about; I read them on the internet, I get them from libraries, I sometimes buy them, and I've a few times even watch a film or video about a person I particularly care about. But for people I just want to know something about, the amount of material I want to know typically reflect the importanceo f the person, and will very rarely indeed extend to anecdotes about their hobbies or personal life or early interests. See WP:EINSTEIN.

And this is exactly why it is difficult to write about people with whom there is a conflict of interest. I'lll give an example. I wrote a short bio of my thesis advisor, because it was asked for by the relevant work group dealing with members of the national academy of sciences. I didn't include everything I knew, either personally, or from department gossip, or what he said about himsel fin the books he had written (including an autobiography), Those who are interested enough will red the autobiography, and his other books, and interviews. Perhaps someone will write a full biography. Now, if he had been very famous to the general public, like Pauling or Feynman, I would have included considerably mrore, basedon the many books and other published avvoutns that have been written by and about them.

As for the article, I shall deal with it. Nobody owns an article, and the editor you mention has as much right to edit it as you or I. I've worked with that editor many times before, and we fdo not always agree about what ought to be in an article, but we'll work something out. The one person who should stay away at this point is you, because there's a conflict of interest.

You certainly have the potential to be a good editor, but the next step is write about things that interest you but that you do not personally really care about. You will find it much easier. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Draft: Paul Legrand[edit]

Hi, sorry, not sure how to link to draft page, but if you think it would work better merged into the Boucheron firm's page, I can do that :) Thank you for your comment. Red Fiona (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC) II'll get there, but probably not today. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit Template[edit]

Hi DGG, I read your comments at User talk:MarioGom#Appian Corporation about the request edit template, and finding alternatives. I'm posting here to avoid derailing JMG's request and going off-topic.

It was stated in the discussion promotionalism & sourcing & notability can best be evaluated in the context of the whole article . I know "request edit" doesn't work that way. I think this argument says request edits are usually posted in sections by COI editors, instead of the COI editor proposing all of an article's edits in one ticket, and causes the backlog that we see in the queue today. If I misinterpreted this argument, I am sorry and hope it will be clarified.

I agree that promotional language, source and notability need to be evaluated together when fulfilling request edits. However, I actually think the template has a different problem: many "quick" proposals (changing a paragraph, removing a sentence or updating the company's revenue) are completed quickly because it takes a short time to assess. Article rewrites (where promotionalism, sourcing and notability are evaluated together) linger in the queue for months because those request take a long time to assess. For example, I think if you did not volunteer to assess JMG's request it would have stayed in the queue for at least three more months because of the work required.

The backlog at request edit needs to be reduced because COI editors don't want their edits to sit in a queue for five months. If edits aren't completed COI editors will ignore the process and implement the edits themselves, causing worse problems for Wikipedia. I don't know how to speed up this process, but here's some options: AfC has a structure for reviewing articles, even though it has a backlog, too. Updating and simplifying the template's reviewer instructions might encourage other editors to join this area. Perhaps having a new user right like pending changes reviewers or rollbackers will encourage wiki hat collectors to give the area a try (and I don't consider hat collecting to necessarily be a bad thing, as long as editors use the roles they apply to).

I'm just throwing some ideas out there to try to fix the process. Thanks for reading this long message.

I think we agree--for fixing quick updates, we need something quick. For revising for promotionalism it's much better to work with the whole article. There are a few other processes split this way. But even for working with the whole article, I personally prefer they either suggest an alternative version, or make the changes they want and I will then revise. What I try to avoid is bargaining back and forth. The coi editor should make their case, and then let the reviewer handle it. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like splitting the process, but will it create another bureaucratic process for COI editors to mess up? Rather than split the process, we need to encourage editors to tackle the larger requests.

I hate the bargaining, but I don't know how to eliminate it. The bargaining is good because editors make mistakes or sometimes the COI finds better sources. One change could be the AfC process: the whole request gets denied and the author has to fix the problem parts and resubmit their preferred version. The problem with this is the second reviewer might be duplicating work by checking sources and what-not. Also, AfC is also backlogged.

If I was king of Wikipedia I would survey editors to find out why they are not participating in this process, especially editors who have participated in the past or regularly participate in COIN. My hypothesis for the lack of participation is: people want to work on their own favourite articles, don't want to help companies promote themselves, are put-off by the volume of work and just aren't interested in this aspect of Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

page size[edit]

(Unrelated note: My computer struggled to load and post a new section on this talk page and I think it's because of the number of discussions my browser had to load. I would consider moving older discussions to their own page and having the "main" talk page consist of recent conversations only. Just wanted to outline my struggles.) Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

known problem. I've tried it even on an iphone and it seems to work for me, but I do mean to do something about it. DId you use the + new section tab at the top? It's designed to deal with this. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about the + button. I'm worried that new editors might have the same problem as me and not know about the +. I posted my message by clicking "edit" beside the previous heading and then adding the info underneath. My hunch is the amount of text that is on the page caused the problem. I don't have this problem in other talk pages and the issue was the delay in what I was typing and what appeared on the screen, and pressing "publish changes" caused an infinite loading circle. I am typing on a laptop with Chrome that has OK specs and is moderately good at loading web pages. If you need someone to test solutions, please let me know. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal Karkhanas[edit]

Hello User:DGG Sir, I am grateful for your edits on the subject. The queries you raised are resolved. Kindly check and advise. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might get there by Monday or Tuesday DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enlabs draft[edit]

Hello DGG,

Thank you for reviewing Enlabs draft page couple of months ago. I have now made changes to the draft, removed low-quality and industry-related references and added new references from Reuters, MSN.com and others.

I already talked about the draft to Cerebellum who also reviewed the draft and seemed to be happy with the changes, but wanted another reviewer to take a look at it for the final call. If you have time, could you please take a look at the draft?

Any feedback would be appreciated, cheers.

Randomhero77 (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might get there by Monday. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Arbitration Service[edit]

Thanks for your service on the Arbitration committee. A thankless but so important job! ---- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid G4 deletion of Miss Grand[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure if you'd had the opportunity to note the contesting of the clearly invalid CSD tagging at Talk:Miss Grand, which explained why the article was in no way eligible for G4 speedy deletion, as all the content was newly written by me and in no way similar to the deleted article, the article was about a different subject from the deleted one, and was referenced to multiple reliable sources which easily demonstrate the notability of the subject. I had written this overview article about the entire franchise so that there would be an encyclopaedic entry to discourage the creation of cruft-filled fan articles. It's frustrating when not only do editors engage in careless drive-by CSD tagging, but admins also trigger-happily follow through with incorrect deletions. Please restore the article, and if you disagree on he subject's notability, take it to AfD. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the content was substantially similar enough that it did not meet the objections. It doesn't matter who wrote it. But I will look at it again in a day or two freshly, to check that I did not make an error. It is possible, however, that another AfD would settle the issue better than my speedy. (Unfortunately, I do not think it likely based on my experience here that the presence of the articlewould do anything but facilitate the creation of unjustified detailed articles.) DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very disconcerting that this is how an admin would interpret G4, which seems to be very much against the spirit of the policy in my reading. I await your self-review, but fully intend to take this to DRV or another venue for second opinion if no further action is forthcoming. Do let me know if you'd rather skip the wait and that I go ahead with it. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul 012, I said I would reconsider it. Please give me a chance to do so. If I'm in doubt, I may reinstate it and leave the speedy tag, which would let anoter admin decide.

Of course people sometimes appeal my decisions, and sometimes the community decides I was wrong. If I do not reinstate it, I'll explain the several available routes.

In practice , an admin can do nothing at all if they are afraid they might make a mistake, and if it would really upset them if someone said so. I tend to work with the more difficult fringe situations, so I expect that people will sometimes decide differently. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

still working on this. I should get to it by Sunday. ``

{{U|Paul 012)) Taking a look once more to clear the confusion from the various versions, I saw a Draft:Miss Grand which seems to have acceptable content , but needs third party references. I think the best way to go is to properly reference that as a start. If it needs an admin ok to move it to mainspace after its been referenced, let me know and I will. If the content returns to promotionalism , then that can be dealt with. If there are any related promotional articles already in WP, they can be dealt with as well, I'm glad a reliable editor like you is working on it.-- OK? DGG ( talk ) 11:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, but no. That draft is a couple of sentences plus a list of names. The version I'm inquiring about, which was previously at Miss Grand, remains deleted. It contained several paragraphs describing the background and history of the topic, and was already referenced to at least three third-party reliable sources in the Thai language. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above-mentioned difficulty of the work, I'd like to note that the only thing I'm disputing is the handling of this specific issue, and the work done by you and all admins is appreciated. That said, it's been over a week now, and surely this isn't the time frame speedy deletions and their follow-ups are supposed to occupy. It seems to me that it might not currently be convenient for you to devote the attention I'm requesting, which is why I asked if going straight to DRV would be a better idea. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it appears you're not quite available to address this currently, I'm going to go ahead and start a DRV. Thanks for the assistance so far. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I had not yet figured out anything better than what I originally suggested, perhaps someone else will. Del Rev is one of the suitable ways to get attention on it. DGG ( talk ) 06

24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)