User talk:DGG/Archive 156 Jan. 2020

                                       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

Stanza Living

Hi DGG, Thanks for your review will update the page and ask for your further suggestions. Happy Holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital1804 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Hey DGG I am already working on new version and trying my best to improve the article based on your suggestion. I dont see a point how marking is as advert is going to affect it. I Request you remove the tag as i am already working on it along with few other articles. Digital1804 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Check

Lotus Picking Song, citations etc.

I'm returning to this article. Thank you for your comments. It was a work in progress and I just filled in the glaring gaps in the citations.

1. There are numerous translations of this Li Bai poem. I cited two, one of which cites two more. The one I use is free verse more faithful to Li's mood imho. Other translations are more literal and maybe stilted. The notes are translation of a Chinese site qq discussing the poem.

2. The Mahler stuff are all from the Wiki "Das Lied" which is very long with many sections. The choral text translation is also from it. Note that by necessity it is different from the Bethge's Die chinesische Flöte.. The German choral text can easily be added if you think it will be good.

3. The Bethge source can also be added as well as the French source(s). If you can do the German translation, that will be great. I certainly cannot do it. I can handle the French. Adding the sources ups the level of the page.

4. If we add 3 above, the other songs in Das Lied become candidates as well.

I would be delighted to work with you on some pages. But my pace is sporadic and unpredictable.

Anyway Happy New Year.

QSandai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Dec 27, 2019 I basically finished it with more references and direct links to Mahler sources without quoting the German.

• • • • • Submitting it for publishing. Would appreciate your looking at it since your prominent top of page warning may deter others.

QSandai (talk)

Thanks and Happy New Year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QSandai (talk • contribs) 16:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. As for translations being copyrighted, if I understand you, someone's translation of the original work is subject to the copyright applied to that original work. I still thought that my reference to the article and own text explaining that the information came from that article was clear enough to define it was not my verbiage and credited the source. I recall quoting works (lengthy quotes at times) from original works in university and including the appropriate reference to that scholarly paper or book and it was acceptable. Have things changed since 2005? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Rattle (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

our rules are different from a university. At a university, you can include the material because of the copyright provision of Fair Use , which permits many things, including using even long excerpts of that sort in an academic paper. At Wikipedia , we do not permit material which is only OK because of the Fair Use provisions, and insist on it being either public domain, or licensed according to WP:CC-BY, which permits anyone in the world to use it for any purpose.

the reason for this is that it was deciding back at the beginning in 2001 that we would make an encyclopedia free for everyone to us, where everything in it is free for anyone in the world to use for any purpose, even commercially. Most commercial use and and many other types of use to do fall under the US Fair Use provisions, and many countries in the world do not permit Fair Use at all, or permit it only with much greater restrictions than the extremely generous and permissive US law. Thus, for everyone to be able to use everything in the encyclopedia , we need to insist on a free copyright.

However, as short excepts of a line or two are probably reasonable fair use or its equivalent anywhere in almost any context, they're OK as an exception. Our rules are at WP:Fair use--but let me warn you that, like many Wikipedia rules, they are exceedingly complicated and not necessarily consistent. Frankly, it takes long experience here to learn beyond the basics , and the way to learn is to be guided by those who do know a little, and to ask questions, just as you are doing. (And if I have myself stated somethign wrong, someone more experienced with copyright will see this and tell me. We learn from each other.). DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Smith Carter

You realize Smith Carter has not existed since 2014, so no, it's not "PR". Everything that has a POV has been attributed to the relevant RS including architectural historians. That they were good at what they did and had a major impact on the city and the region is not my opinion. Please make more specific criticisms or suggestions on the talk page. I cannot be expected to make adequate edits based on vague assertions. Or else make some changes yourself. I am absolutely willing to work with anyone who makes constructive criticism etc., but I can't be expected to make guesses based on that tag.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"This article reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism." -I see no examples of the former but I'm happy for you to point them out. As for the latter, no, not at all. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

the use of quotes of praise about how excellent the work is, especially in the lede, is indeed the problem. That they are sourced is no justification, because it's generally possible to cherry-pick, and this is one of the primary devices of paid promotional writers here. A NPOV bio should look different. The simple statement of the awards makes the point much better. Thats why the tag I used is "reads like a press release " not "this is an advertisement" DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The lede is practically identical to Dennis H. Carter and no one has brought that up. The people quoted are experts in the field and these are stated facts, not praise. They had that impact on the city. They built most of the major buildings downtown. They advocated the things they did. etc. Copying this to article's talk page and pinging two editors, one specialized on Canadiana the other on architecture.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review

Thanks for reviewing my AFC submission. I have another one awaiting review. Draft:Enlight Quickshot Would you mind taking a look? Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

accepted. May ned some more links. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. You are a true mensch. Ill add them. Also want to improve the infobox. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Andres Soto

I disagree, nominate it for deletion if you wish. Perhaps it can be merged with Richmond Progressive Alliance so people interested in Richmond politics can look him up and see what he's all about.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

actually, Ndołkah, I think that would be a very good solution. If you do this, you can make a redirect from the name, and then people will find the infromation. If it has been already deleted, you can still make a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

OK thank you, I will work on in, I have been spending my time rewriting Jim Rogers (California politician) how did I do? And also improving Richmond City Council (Richmond, California). But I will find the time now off to put away the dry dishes.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am now working on the RPA article ASAP because it is under threat of being deleted itself even though two books have been written about it, the article is admittedly in poor shape but there are tons of references around, care to help me expand? Also where is the Andrés Soto article in my draftspace I cannot find it!Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The Soto page is at Draft:Andres Soto

What the RPA article needs is one or two good third party references. I would guess there are articles in the Bay Area newspapers. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 17:36:21, 28 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Krystian.Kaczor

• Krystian.Kaczor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Larman’s Laws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Howdy DGG, I edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Larman as you proposed. Please, review the changes.

Krystian.Kaczor (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Krystian.Kaczor, what is now needed is for the material in the article on Larman to be referenced. Every statement or group of statments must have a reliable source, and every thing that might possibly be a matter of judgment needs a third party reliable source. This needs to be done right away--unreferenced material in a BLP is likely to be removed. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

DGG, I put the reference to the book (They were first published in the [1]2016 book.) Isn't that enough?

--Krystian.Kaczor (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Hi David, I see that you were the one who proposed deletion for an article on Frederick Goold in August 2018, and the result at the time was "no consensus". I am just letting you know that I have renominated this article for deletion here.[1]. I think you were right to raise it, and the additional sources provided at the time did nothing to establish notability. I have also proposed two others for deletion for the same reason here [2] and here [3] -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll comment. on one, to say: But there is a solution: redirect to the archdeaconry, which has been done in a few cases, and in that article give a complete list, not jut of the ones who happen to have been picked up here. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Pi314m, Thanks

First, Thanks. (Gen. 29:35, birth/naming of Judah). Not just for your patience re CIJE/Center but for the advice you wrote on my Talk Page. (Yes, I know that excessive use of capitals is likely to lead to promo-type thinking, but I don't want to use exclamation points- that, somehow, seems worse).

As for CIJE/Center, if I needed a "swift kick" then speedy was a better prod than WP:PROD. I know that the-other-is-worse / there's-stuff-out-there is a poor excuse, or better yet not at all an excuse. I also know of your battle against promo, and I'd rather have fewer words, if it's non-promo. The topic deserves a good job. I've been looking at their 1990s, since it's the foundation for why the organization(s) were founded/funded. Again, thanks. Pi314m (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. 1990

Microsoft was founded 1975. From 1990 to 2019 is 29 years. To not include companies founded after 1990 (unless ((de))drafted) would have meant omit Microsoft until 2004 (1975+29). No article about MS DOS until 2004, let alone Windows, XP, or even Windows 7? To have Wikipedia become known as too hard to find stuff there would simply cause the first stop to be something else; speedia, speediac and speedyak .com are already taken. This P.S. is not meant to disagree in principal, but rather to note that the goal will take more work. Pi314m (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

1. I didn't speedy because I wanted to call attention dramatically; I speedied because I thought and continue to think it is necessary to start over from scratch. I never meant to imply there should not be an article, but there's a long way to go for NPOV. I'm not going to discuss specific content here--see the article talk p. 2.I have never advocated not covering new companies or organizations, tho a few people have--some because they want to avoid POV conflicts, some to avoid promotionalism , some for the greater dignity of an encyclopedia. There's a great deal of promotionalism in articles about older organizations, and I've been working systematically on some fields, like law schools. The idea of focussing on the new organizations is to focus attention, not limit it. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Orinx

Thanks,

I did not expect that it would succeed this year.

Happy New Year,

Pajot - De Wolf (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

--RMT 17:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Many thanks and have a great start in 2020 David! User:Robert Mazarin --RMT 17:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Pajot - De Wolf, I approved it, because I do not think on balance it is likely to be deleted in mainspace--this does not guarantee that nobody will nominate it or that it will not be deleted . However, I would very strongly advise you to separate the material of the horses, and merge it into our article on Belgian horse. I may even do this myself, or ask some editor here who actually knows something about horses to do it.

I added a note that it was apparently translated from the nlWP; this may not have been correct--judging by the edit history, the enWP version may be the original. Please adjust if necessary; to avoid confusion, whichever version is the original, add an appropriate link to the others.

Also please note that if any of this was published in another form, you need to at least attribute it; if it was reproduced from a source where someone else own the copyright, that part must be rewritten or removed. Because of the specialized nature of the material, and the assumption that the original language of any such source would be Dutch, I found this difficult to do myself. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

-- Indeed the nlWp is the original. I agree and am grateful for your proposal of merging. Pajot - De Wolf (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Came by to wish you a Happy New Year! Saw the section on Belgians - will add note at WP:WikiProject Equine. I'm still trying to verify claims - several sources are in Dutch or other language ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Your instinct was not wrong, DGG! It was indeed previously published – see this comparison. Would you like to do the necessary? If not, I'll try to remember to do so when I resurface tomorrow. HNY! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

re new shawanga lodge page

Thank you for reviewing the new submission. I have a question. Content was removed because it says I need to site a primary source. How do i put this info in if my father and I are the primary source. There are few to no people alive today who can provide this content.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daliwong (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If there are no published sources, the material cannot be included. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , not a place for people's personal history of what they have been engaged in. See WP:V for an explanation.

Additionallly, you need to include the tag {{connected contributor}} at the top of the article DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

About your revision

Hello DGG. I would like to reply about your revision of Draft:Teatro_Nazionale_di_Genova, do I bother you if I contact you directly? It's definitely easier. ;) My English is not the best, so please forgive if I'm not great in explaining myself or writing articles, but at least I know Wikipedia and its rules pretty well (I've been an user since 2009). I have read your comment in which you say that "You vbsolutely must have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements". Maybe you checked those sources with a bit of a hurry, because the sources are:

1. The European Theater Convention (an independent database co-funded by the European Union)
2. ArtBonus (an independent publication by the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities)
3. Cultura In Liguria (an independent publication by Regione Liguria)
4. Fondazione SanPaolo (I agree with you that this one is not the best source ever, but it's always an important NGO which financially collaborated to the theatre expansion... I could maybe find something better)

That first three sources are fully independent, peer reviewed, official and the most realiable I could find according to WP:RS.

Generally speaking, the National Theatre of Genoa is the most important theatre Genoa (after the Teatro Carlo Felice), and it's also one of the most important theatre in Italy since it's a "National Theatre" (which is a title subject to a national law). Any "National Theatre" is nationally notable in Italy. Any theatre listed by the European Theater Convention is probably notable. I tried to find English sources but I am not that good in doing it, I can provide sources in Italian, but those that I used were definitely better than a general newspaper: if you define "press releases or mere announcements" those independent, institutional and international sources, what could happen with Italian sources which you probabily need to translate? :-)

I would really appreciate your help, because it was a bit of a challenge for me to write all that text (as this message is), and I am definitely losing my enthusiasm with such a "rough" review. I have no particular interest in writing this article (except for the fact that I like my city and the drama, as you can see from my contributes in the Italian wiki), so any help and a more careful check of the source would be very appreciated. Thank you. --Teatroge (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It's very appropriate that you wrote to me promptly, so I can deal with the problem right away. It will be easier to evaluate the references if they are written in the format prescribed by WP:CITEBEGIN. This isn't strictly required, but the full format shows the nature of the references, wehich the abbreviated format you used did not. I apologize if I therefore did not evaluate it adequately, (and indeed, I really should have gone in and fixed this myself) but there are an increasing number of submisions to review and a 4 month backlog, so I , like all reviewers here, tend to need to take shortcuts, even though I know it can lead to errors. Just please fix them, and resubmit, and I will check it tomorrow. And if you can add sources in Italian, please do,. The best practice is to add both the best references available in English, and also the best references, regardless of language. English speakers at least in the US tend to be monoglots, and need encouragement to develop a broader outlook. DGG ( talk ) 10:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Commenting at WP:AE

Arbs generally avoid commenting at AE, sensibly, as they may later be called on to take part in a related RFAR case. But since you have nevertheless done so, I believe you ought to explain yourself there when asked, especially about arbcom policy. I hope Awilley's ping to you here didn't misfire? And I too have asked you a question, though not as important, and without pinging (on the assumption that you were watching). Bishonen | talk 12:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC).

I wasn't an arb at the time, but enjoying my last few days of freedom. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to remind you that you had already been elected for the new arbcom. Are you saying you prefer not to answer those questions? Not even after Awilley wrote "I retired the "auto-boomerang" sanction based on DGG's assertion that it was against Arbcom policy. I took that at face value and without question since DGG is a former arb. @DGG: Could you please elaborate a bit on this? What part of Arbcom policy prohibits sanctions like this? This seems important since we're considering a similar sanction here." Bishonen | talk 20:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC).

This requires a substantial answer, and I consider these carefully before I write them. This is especially true because I am now on arb com. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Your procrastination reminds me a little of FT2 in 2008-2009, DGG: "It requires full comprehensive details of a matter taking place during the course of a year, from a very wide range of on- and off-site venues, and comprehensive disclosure is what is being delivered since I have no plans to do this degree of research in year-old archives again for this. It also has to fit round my work and others' work, my real life, and other historic matters, and coincides with a family season, a new arbcom season and the start of the working year." Etc, etc, etc. I suggest you just forget it; I, at least, am not going to bother you about it further. It's not such a big deal, after all. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC).

I'm guessing from the 2-day delay on this that it isn't as clear-cut as I initially assumed. I think the AE thread, which has kind of been on hold for that time, needs a timely close, and it looks like it might be headed in that direction with or without your input. While that removes some of the urgency, I wanted to say that I would still appreciate a response to the question, whether that be here, on my user subpage, or even by email if you prefer. ~Awilley (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to the policy that prohibits Arbs from providing input at AE? I was not aware that when ArbCom authorized admins to enforce arbitration remedies that were decided by the committee that arbs were actually signing-off all rights to participate or provide input at arbitration enforcement. Are they sworn to silence after becoming an arb? If so, can we expand the number of arbs to say 300? It makes me realize just how little I know about the giant maze of policies and guidelines, especially considering I'm still trying to remember the meaning of our most used acronyms. Eight years isn't long enough for me to learn even a fraction of this stuff. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I responded yesterday to the original question on the relevant page. As for nature and fairness of some of the comments above, I don't respond to harassment. this being my talk p., I have the last word; the topic is closed. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Christopher Marquis and your logic

Hi. Merry Christmas to you. Just wondered how comes that you accept at the AfC process totally unreferenced articles from an obvious WP:SPA account (such as Christopher Marquis) and put a stop to Draft:Joanne Wilson. What is your logic here? --Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

As for Wilson, it's a classic example of WP:CITEKILL. You've apparently been paid to write it, so fix it.

And as for Marquis, he meets WP:PROF, and there were sufficient cites in the version I approved. There were indeed no true third party citations, but the citations that were there were reliable enough to prove the criterion for WP:PROF, which works differently from GNG. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I see. The notion that you expect top-notch contributions from me is both flattering and challenging. :) --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Came across a page of an individual that had a neutrality tag slapped on it in October 2018. Says Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. There's a contentious talk page with a lot of discussion and at this point in time, I don't really know that much about him but I would like to work with you on improving the page. Would this be ok? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

MaskedSinger, first step is to tell me what page it is. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

DGG Of course! here or privately? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

here. People here generally do not do work like this privately. All cooperation in WP ought to be public. And others may want to see what they think about it too. Nobody owns an article. Advice: in asking about something, always tell the person right away what it is. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. No problem! Adam Milstein. I see now that it's a page you've had some history with. I don't know anything about the subject or the history of the page which I think in theory would make me a ideal candidate to clean it up. I only came across it via Israeli-American_Council. If this is too complicated can just leave it. But if you think it's something that can be done, I'd love to do it with your counsel. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 08:33:35, 2 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Thymewreath

• Thymewreath (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Infermedica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've seen you've rejected my submission of Infermedica page. Firstly - thank you for your work and time you've put to read it. I wonder if you could tell me a little bit more about the reason for the decline. I understand the rules of Wikipedia but I don't see how I can put that into practice in this example. It would be really helpful if you couyld share some more information. What is the main problem with the submission? Is it a problem mainly with NPOV or more with notability? Could you share some tips on which specific parts to correct and in what capacity? Thanks again for your time.

Thymewreath (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

problems with notability and promotionalism tend to be inter-related, because for a less than notable company, there's nothing much else to say. I've reviewed your references. The firm does not appear to be yet notable. The good references are general ones for the overall technology, and do not even mention the company. DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 10:31:29, 2 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Metamorfoinmaterial

• Metamorfoinmaterial (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mailjet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello ! Thank you for reviewing my submission. I was wondering how do you think I could re-write the article so that it meets Wikipedia standards and does not appear like "advertising". This page exists in French Wikipedia, and this article is a translation of the french one. Thank you so much !

Metamorfoinmaterial (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think our standards for notability of companies are probably higher than the frWP. DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Edited Draft:Protective colloid

I have expanded it,adding more sections and added the relevant sources.Can you check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.srinivasa1234 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I accepted it. Needs considerable more expansion, but that can be done in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Symphoniacs Notability Follow-up

DGG, thank you for your effort and time in reviewing my submission! I have reviewed the notability requirements and I would like to broaden my explanation of some of the foreign-language sources, as well as describe the fixes I have added.

1. Following Criteria 1 from WP=Band I have included the following sources that I believe to be reliable, independent, published and in-depth articles from major European publications, including Süddeutsche Zeitung with is the main newspaper of the Bavarian state of Germany, 20 Minuten, a Swiss commuter newspaper with a readership of around 436,000 Berliner Woche that is read by 1.8 million weekly in Germany and Die Rheinpfalz, which is the most important paper in the Rhineland region. Below is a list of what I believe to be the best sources:

A. “Neue Partytour". Sueddeutsche.de. 7 April 2017. Retrieved 24 October 2017. (Seuddeutsche Zeitung is a Munich, Germany based daily newspaper with a circulation of 345,000, making it one of the most important papers in Germany. The article covers the early marketing of the ensemble, artist training and social media presence.)

B. "THE VIOLIN CHANNEL: NEW TO YOUTUBE Symphoniacs – Electro-Classical Chamber Orchestra, 'Animals' [Video].". The Violin Channel. 31 October 2016. Retrieved 24 October 2017. (The Violin Channel is an independant classical music news source.)

C. ”Diese Jungs wollen die Club-Musik verändern". 20 Minuten. Retrieved 24 October 2017. (20 Minuten is a Swiss commuter newspaper with a circulation of 436,344. This article reviews a Symphoniacs performance in Zurich, Switzerland and covers general information on the group.)

D. “GNTM 2017: Symphoniacs zu Gast bei Geidi Klum und Philipp Plein!". Berliner Wochenblatt Verlag GmbH. Retrieved 24 October 2017. (Berliner Wochenblatt, or Berlin Weekly, is a weekly paper with 1.8 million readers. This article covers Symphoniacs' guest appearance on Heidi Klum's Germany's Next Top Model.)

E. "Klassische Musik zum Tanzen". Die Rheinpfalz. Retreived 30 August 2019. (Die Rheinpfalz is the largest newspaper of the Rhineland region of Germany with a circulation of 236,029. This article is a review of a Symphoniacs performance at The Philharmonie in Munich, Germany and also covers Symphoniacs' New Years Eve Performance at Brandenburg Gate.)

F. "Orchestral Manoeuvres". Lola Magazine. Retreived 30 August 2019. (Lola Magazine is a Berlin based cultural magazine. This article is an extended interview with Andy Leomar and Colin Stokes.)

G. "A new classical 'boy band' has been put together, and people are pretty mad about it". Classic FM. Retreived 30 August 2019. (Classic FM is one of the UK's three independant national radio stations. This article covers the initial social media reactions to the early promotional material.)

H. "Elektro-Klassik mit Stolperfalle". Neue Presse. Retrieved 30 August 2019. (Neue Presse is a daily newspaper based in Hannover, Germany with a circulation of 55,000. The article reviews a Symphoniacs performance at Theater im Aegi in Hannover.)

I. "Andy Leomar: 'Strawinski ist groovig, cool'" Die Presse. Retrieved 30 August 2019. (Die Presse is an Austrian daily paper with a circulation of 315,000. The article covers general information on Symphoniacs as well as an in-depth interview with Andy Leomar.)

Next step: reduce use of the name of the band, condense the listings of appearances, remove those of the refs that are notices or PR, and resubmit. make sure the refs are in cite form to display the name of the journal. It probably does meet WP:MUSIC, . DGG ( talk ) 10:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

2. For Criteria 2 of WP=Band, I added national chart information and sources to the Discography section of draft:Symphoniacs. The group has been on the national musical charts in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Japan.

3. WP=Band Criteria 4 seems to be under discussion still, but there is one well documented international tour booked by Live Nation of Symphoniacs in 2017. The tour included 13 concerts in three countries and I have included three sources: The first (IAATM) merely establishes that the tour happened, but the following two (20 Minuten and Neue Presse) are in-depth reviews of actual performances, from established, independant publications (both from the list above).

There seems to have been only one concert each in Switzerland and Austria, but 11 in Germany, which for the size of the country seems substantial to me.

4. For WP=Band Criteria 5 I have added their second major-label release (with new sources) in the discography section. They have two releases, first with Universal Music in 2016, and second with Warner Music Japan in 2019.

I look forward to further revision suggestions, and thank you again for you review! Ndfiz (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the further suggestions @DGG:! I have made the following edits and will resubmit shortly:

EDIT 1 - I removed 8 instances of the name Symphoniacs, and replaced them with pronouns.

EDIT 2 - I removed about 50% of locations listed in the appearances section, leaving just the more notable instances.

EDIT 3 - I removed 5 refs that come from non-independant sources. These include Music Lounge, Brucknerhaus, Euromaxx Videos, Caudwell Children and ProSieben. I have replaced these with Citation Needed templates when necessary.

UPCOMING EDITS - I am working on finding new sources to replace the deleted refs and fixing several broken links in the Television section Ndfiz (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I think the page that goes by the name https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyemowei_Odior_Lily should not be deleted due to some well known reason as the blogger is a well known celebrity bloggee here in my country so i think the page should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkIblog (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

regardless of possible notability the article was promotional, and several other admins have thought so also. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Anthem Press

What's your opinion about the reliability (and reputation) of this press? ∯WBG^converse 09:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

second level not very important important academic publisher, but a genuine academic publisher. Wha's the context? DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC) lk:HasteurBot|talk]]) 04:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

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

Administrator changes

Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill

Deor • Spartaz • Xeno

Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes

Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes

Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

Carvertical

Are you sure it was a CSD #A7 candidate? --Mariunsjal (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

::checking  DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. --Mariunsjal (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Undelete/Protect page Northern_Transmissions

I would like to create a page at Northern_Transmissions but I see that it was created a deleted multiple times in 2015. Please inform me as to how to proceed. Henry A-W (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, start in in draft space, by making a page Draft:Northern Transmissions. When it is reviewed , if it is judged acceptable, an administrator will move it over the protection. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I've created Draft:Northern Transmissions which is ready for review. In the course of creating it I discovered the url is blacklisted. I was unsuccessful in having it removed [4] so I have created the page without any references to the url. Since this page is about a website I can understand that a page without any references to url may not meet certain standards. Please advise.--Henry A-W (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Tacoma Telephone Pioneer Museum ‎

Thanks for moving the article to draft. I admit it is a bit thin. I have been adding articles about museums, and maybe this one will be a scraper. I will see if I can find more. Wm335td (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

G. Gertoux

Dear DGG. I will be grateful, in case you can help me with Draft:Gérard Gertoux. Thank you in advance for your valuable time, and your excellent work in wikipedia. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have just read the discussion on the frWP which led to the deletion of hte article--a much more thorough discussion than the AfD at enWP. (I also read the summaries of some of his papers at academia)I do not think it will be possible to show that he's notable by our standards. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thomas_H._Olbricht

Thanks for your help with this page. I’ve now added references and resubmitted. (I’m new to using “Talk,” so apologies if I’ve done anything wrong here.) Jepetersonphd (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Edgeworth Economics
• Draft:The Solar Water Project

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Google search results for an article you reviewed

Hi DGG, you reviewed my newly-created article, Knabb Turpentine, for which I thank you, if I haven't already. I was wondering if you have any idea why the Googlebot has not indexed the article after 10 days? Bing search results don't show it either, but DuckDuckGo's results have it at the top. Oddly, both Google's and Bing's search results show a snippet of a wikilinked mention of Knabb Turpentine I added to the WP article Peon. Carlstak (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

someone else will have to answer that. I see nothing obvious. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. Carlstak (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

you probably dont remember me from montreal wikimania

I have the opinion that TW is actually the highest standard content editor we have in the wonderful land of OZ.

But then as an endless tagger, I have a very personal view, it might not fit with others... JarrahTree 06:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Mohamed Trebak

Hi DGG. I was wondering if you had time to give me a quick notability opinion. Is this enough cites to meet NPROF1? Does it matter if the subject is the lead author on a paper or not? Thanks – Levivich 16:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The number depends on field. He's in biomedicine, for which our effective standard is one , or better two, papers with over 100 citations each. The total number of citations doesn't matter, what matters is that whether he has done highly influential work, so it's the highest ones that show it. He would seem to clearly meet it , with 22 papers over 100, some in the 300s.

Now some details, not that it's really needed here, but as a guide to how to look at these:

But it has to be his work, not his advisors work in which he merely took part, or his student's work which he merely supervised, and that's much harder to tell. The key date is when he finished his PhD (uncertain, probably about 2003) and his postdoc(s) (2007) , taking account of a usual 1-year publication lag. . The principal author of a paper is either the first or last--there is no way to tell without looking at the academic positions of all the authors and their practices with citations and who received the principal grant under which the work was done. All of this has multiple exceptions: Sometimes a scientist's really important work is that done as a grad student or postdoc. The person is first or last position may be the most senior person, not the person whose actual idea it was or who did the bulk of the work. The person who received the main grant (which can only be seen by looking at the paper) is the head of the lab, but again may not be the person whose actual idea it was or who did the bulk of the work. All of this makes it quite a project. It is taken into account when promoting to tenure, or awarding prizes, but it really takes people who can actually judge the work--there's a limit to what can be done by bibliometrics alone.

There is a potential problem here. His most cited work was done while he was still a student or postdoc, and it seems he remained in the same general field for his later career. But this is a factor unnecessary to take into account for our purposes except if someone's borderline, and he has 9 papers with >100 references for 2010+.

Butt here's a real problem as far as we are concerned--the entire article is a direct copyvio from [5], which the article actually lists as the only reference!. (For bios, the person's website is the first place to check. ) I have tagged it for speedy deletion as copyvio. What really concerns me, is that this article comes from a regular contributor with 18,000 mainspace edits since 2017. This will need follow up. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The numbers rule-of-thumb is helpful and the explanation about bibliometrics even more so (NPROF is complicated!). I didn't even notice the copyvio issue; I was just focused on the GS cites. Thanks for looking into this. – Levivich 20:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Marty Murphy

Please move Marty Murphy back to draft, and if you wouldn't mind - have a crack at Ylevental for putting it in the main space without having the draft reviewed first. His POV pushing is getting out of hand. I can't reverse the move as an IP. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:3DEB:BF6A:4A2D:9008 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

it's been moved. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Virgin Radio (Canada)

Hi DGG,

I have seen you at AfD a number of times, and when I noticed the Virgin Radio (Canada) page at the top of the Special:NewPagesFeed, I was curious as I've edited Bell Media Radio and IHeartRadio Canada a fair bit. It consisted of a single infobox and a completely blank page, so tagged it WP:CSD#A3. I see it may not be eligible, unless one of the other CSD criteria apply. If you note the Lede title above the infobox says "Capital," which makes no sense, so I'm wondering if WP:CSD#A1 might be better? Or, possibly WP:CSD#A10? Or, do we need to take this AfD, or are you aware of some other criterion we can use?

Anyway, the reason I'm messaging you is because you warned, just two days ago, Cificis for disruptive editing of UK radio-related articles.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 01:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

DGG, you can disregard the above, as I dream of horses took care of it and moved it to Draft: namespace without leaving a redirect. I'm guessing that's the preferred option? --Doug Mehus T·C 01:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course, I was unaware of the above discussion until just now, so it's probably a good thing Dmehus alerted to it. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I dream of horses, Thanks for your reply. Though I'm not a new page reviewer, I imagine there are new page reviewers that move undersourced new articles to the Draft: namespace and then just use the CSD tag to delete the redirect. Is that the best way to handle that, for those without page move permissions? Doug Mehus T·C 01:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Yeah, if you want to draftify an article without page mover, that's how you do it. It's often perceived as more civil than nominating an article for deletion, so I don't do nominate unless I must.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I dream of horses, Thanks...yes, I always prefer to assume good faith unless it's absolutely patently clear (i.e., replacing the CEO with the name of an unrelated celebrity or something). Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me! Doug Mehus T·C 01:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• The best way to draftify is by using the script for the purpose, See the documentation at User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/Draftify It does the necessary moves and leaves a message, and , for an admin, it does the necessary deletion of the redirect. A non admin will still need to nominate the redirect page for speedy. I would use the G6 speedy tag, technical deletions, because a mainspace page should not redirect to a draft space page.

If the article is totally hopeless, there's no point adding it to draft space--the criterion is whether it seems possible to make it an acceptable article. For articles that are essentially advertising, I usually nominate for G11 instead of moving to draft, but if there's a reasonable possibility of removing the advertising, then it should go to draft. (we do remove hopelessly promotional drafts by G11, but the rules for this are more limiting than for articles). If a subject is clearly notable, and the advertising can be easily removed, tho, the best course is to remove it yourself. (Ifonly borderline notable or it would take work to remove, then draft is the better choice. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Abrahamson Center
• Draft:Association for Molecular Pathology....

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

HasteurBot, Oh, interesting. I should look into subscribing to this! I was going through the AfC drafts by date maintenance categories. (Or is that an equally common way?) And, yes, I realize I'm talking to a bot. DGG or talk page stalkers, feel free to reply (if you wish). Doug Mehus T·C 05:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The way the bot works, this is a list of those about to be deleted as G13 that I have previously commented on or edited. If you have drafts in those categories, I think you'll get these automatically. There are a number of complementary ways of looking at all drafts in danger of deletion: I use Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. It's supposed to be arranged with the ones about to get deleted at the front, but it doesn't always work out that way. I try to pull out academics, organizations, and historical buildings or events , all of which I know some AfC reviewers don't check carefully enough, and the authors often abandon.

An alternative method uses Wikipedia:Database reports/Stale drafts. It provides more information, but is limited to articles in the last day before deletion, and is not quick enough to catch most of them. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD of Robert Olson

Hi DGG. Since you recently reviewed Draft:Robert A. Olson and made comments about the subject's notability, and you've also been working on the Biografer cleanup, I thought you might want to know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Olson. BTW, I thought in the case of this particular article, it had been rephrased enough so that it wasn't a G12 of the NYTimes death notice cited in the article (like many other of these creations were), but you may have a different opinion on that. Cheers! – Levivich 18:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

2016 state elections ...

Before resubmitting Draft:2016 Pennsylvania elections and Draft:2016 Michigan elections, please review similar articles from Category:2016 elections in the United States.

I created those Drafts using 2018 South Carolina elections as a model by way of 2018 North Carolina elections. Reviewing other states articles you will find a classification of no actual content isn't appropriate to not launch these articles into mainspace.

Since it took over three months just to be rejected last time, it would be helpful to the wp:Reader to just Okay these articles now.

Thank you for your time. X1\ (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I can find no similar pages. Al the ones I see are about a specific election, such as 2016 Senate election in ___ . Do you know of any? But as for the issue, I can see a rationale for the use of such a page for navigation. We have corresponding categories, and this is one of the cases where I do not think a list or page of this sort is particularly more helpful than a category. But since you do not need to go thru draft space, why not make the articles directly in mainspace? Or is this perhaps part ofsome AP thing/ DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If you don't oppose then, I'll mainspace immediately. X1\ (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Protests of 2019

An independent POV would be useful at Protests of 2019 and Talk:Protests of 2019. A user insists on adding OR and insists on reverting rather than discussing the issues on the talk page. Boud (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've commented. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Jan 22: WikiWednesday Salon NYC

January 22, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda. Wednesday January 22 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Metropolitan New York Library Council (8th floor) at 599 11th Avenue, Manhattan We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Fatima Al Mansoori

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD control of bulk nominations

Hi DGG. I see you often at AfD and know that you think a lot about it.

Over the last week, I have seen two "bulk-noms" of articles to AfD (which you have probably also seen); one being of Onel5969's US GEO stubs, and another being of Scope creep's WWII German BLPs. Both have resulted in each author leaving the project (at least for a period). While the noms were in good faith, they were "technical" articles where more than simple searches for GNG were needed (e.g. Onel5969's stubs had some confusion a reading of USGA listings as they applied to GEO, while Scope creep's BLPs needed sourcing from offline sources and de-WP). Such AfDs can accumulate easy Delete !votes, while the Keeps hunt for references and sources; and some Keeps will have a finite time capacity for the number of articles they can/will participate in.

My question is whether we should have some kind of rule that a single author can only have say 2-3 of their articles nominated at AfD at a given time – unless an admin explicitly gives consent for more, and such consent only being for egregious cases of PROMO/COI/UPE/SPAM etc. The logic being that a nom could not swamp/overwhelm a creator at AfD, and that it might prompt noms to get more buy-in/have more discussion with the author to other options (e.g. merging articles into other head articles/lists etc.). Also, the outcome of the first AfDs, will greatly inform all parties on the likely trajectory afterward.

I suggest this because the potential long-term loss of either of these two above established editors vastly exceeds any considerations about whether their nominated articles should stay or go in WP (they are not egregious violations by any means). We would not need to program this rule into AfD (although maybe later), but at least an article creator could "press the panic button" if they saw lots of their articles at AfD, and give them time to gather themselves, see if they can build support/consensus etc., and reflect on how the first AfDs progress.

Is that a mad idea? Britishfinance (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

could you be so kind as to comment Re my request for help

here? If so, thank you so very much, Mr. DGG --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Advice on how to edit 'Ceramic art'

Hi DGG. Could you please advice about the following? A month ago I created a wiki page 'Lodi ceramics', which you approved. I would now like to edit the page 'Ceramic art', section 'History', subsection 'Europe'. I could add a sentence about Lodi ceramics in the Tin-glazed pottery sub-sub-section, but this sub-sub-section is so short that it would be much better to improve this section about tin-glazed pottery adding details about Italy and the 17th-18th century at least. However I don't have enough knowledge. Adding just a sentence about Lodi ceramics feels like adding a details to a background that is missing. Alternatively, I could add a section at the bottom of the History-Europe section, titled 'Pottery in Italy', and just add the wikilink to Lodi ceramics. Similar sections already exist for Germany, Austria and Russia. What do you advice? Thanks in advance --Arkie Hodge (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Arkie Hodge, do both. There's nothing wrong with a short section if it's in parallel with other sections. But in addition make links from the Lodi article. Within limits, the more cross-referencing the better,.

Try to provide for all the possibilities DGG ( talk ) 09:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Christopher J. Handagy

I inadvertently put this in December, 2019 and then I realized it is January, 2020=))

DGG Hello, Mr. Goodman! I got back from my Christmas vacation and took my time to add a few notable book reviews to Hadnagy's draft with new sources added. It has more than 30 citations now and the text has been through significant updates and re-wording, according to your advice. Do you think it should be pending on review list or maybe you can take an extra look and let me know if there are still any issues there? If you say, it is good to go (or not), it might be helpful for a new user like me. I would really appreciate your knowledge and expertise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_J._Hadnagy

Suchexams (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Suchexams, you need at least to make the references a little fuller using the citeweb template to show where the reference comes from. Then the book reviews should be used as references for the books, using the quote=parameter of the cite template. I'll come around in a week and show you, if you haven't done it.

Also, take a careful look about wherethe reviews are comingf rom . some are more reliable than the others. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Women in Cognitive Science

I can't find any other sources except for their site. So I decided to give up on this article and work on creating something else. 

acroospulle 21:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Acroospulle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroospulle (talk • contribs)

Annette Carson

I have taken on board the comments made by you and others relating to this article, made appropriate changes, and moved to mainspace. Can you please review and remove the rejection notice.

Thank you. The Retiree (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I have commented further on your talkpage. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Tags on Pamela E. Harris

Hi! I saw you put some tags on the new article on Pamela E. Harris. I was just wondering if you could explain further. I thought that the several in-depth independent sources published over the span of 2 years ([6], [7], [8], [9]) would easily make her pass WP:GNG. I also don't see how this article could be described as WP:SENSATIONAL. Would be very grateful if you could provide and explanation and/or suggest what you would want to see improved to get the tags removed. Thanks! Achaea (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

1. The first notice is one of our standard multi-purpose notices, which , like so many of our notices , unfortunately does not specifically describe the situation. The relevant part is that I consider it written in a promotional style, suitable more for a web page than an encyclopedia. For example, it omits listing her published work .
2. The second is that I do not think she meets WP:PROF. She is not yet notable as a researcher. Most of her papers are uncited by other mathematical papers., except her own., or cited only for other reasons than the mathematics.It is possible to meet itWP:PROF as a teacher, but the awards are junior-level. But she apparently has received enough notice to meet the general notability standard, WP:GNG, which even for an academic is an alternative.

You will notice I did not nominate it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Resubmission

Hi, I've been trying to resubmit this draft that I started long ago Draft:Daniel_Garcia-Castellanos, but I am not sure I did it properly, first time. Could you please check? Do I have to add any more info or place it in another discussion page? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoBurst (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Geoburst,you did it right, and I just accepted it. It should never have been declined in the first place; the editor who declined it has since been banned from Wikipedia, DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Royal and Venerable Confraternity of the Most Blessed Sacrament of Mafra

Hi User talk:DGG, I am trying to get this Draft improved and approved to Wikipedia standards.Draft:Royal and Venerable Confraternity of the Most Blessed Sacrament of Mafra I believe it has been significantly improved since your last rejection. Hope it is sufficient. Can you please re-read and advise.Many thanks Melroross (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

accepted. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much for approving my article! I worked hard on it!

Florence Hansen (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Powering Past Coal Alliance

Hi DGC, I noticed that you have removed the article on the Powering Past Coal Alliance, but the draft version of the article still exists. I don't understand why you did this. The article has existed since 2018, and could use improvement, but not deletion. The Powering Past Coal Alliance is clearly notable. It is true that I redirected the redirect page "PPCA" to this, from a different article; and I made edits and improvements to the article. These moves were fully compliant with Wikipedia's policies. Please put the article on "Powering Past Coal Alliance" back in the mainspace. Narayansg (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Narayansg, please help me judge it. For all of the references use the cite ref format at WP:REFBEGIN , and edit each reference to show not just the title, but the name of the publication or website, and the author if there is one, and the date it was published. Then notify me here. (The question is whether any of the references are substantial; if they are, I would expect more discussion in the article about what they say, besides that various countries joined). DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added more info on the references with the website, author, and date. It appears that the people who had made the edits in the first place used the automatic citation tool on the plaintext editor, which did not provide these. Narayansg (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Reinhart Ceulemans

Hi User talk:DGG, Thanks for your suggestions on the Draft:Reinhart_Ceulemans. I further improved the article. Can you please check and let me know if further corrections are necessary? And how do I avoid getting different editors reviewing the page, with different opinions about what it should look like? Thanks! Saravicca (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I've copyedited it, and will accept DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyright question about linking to articles through Semantic Scholar

DGG, there is some disgreement on the understanding of whether PDFs can be pointed to via the open access tool Semantic Scholar through the WMFLabs OABOT, and I would value your thoughts on this. Can you see the discussion on the Reliable sources Noticeboard and offer your thoughts on this? It relates to a number of reverts to my edits where another editor stated that using those sources is a copyright violation. I want to avoid copyright violations at all costs on Wiki, but am getting conflicting interpretations of this. Thank you. --- FULBERT (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I've seen it. Copyright paranoia. My view of appropriate copyright policy is so far different from the self-righteous one prevalent here, that I usually avoid discussions on the subject. I just get frustrated. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Eli Schechtman

Thank you for your help! Please, see my new version!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki82esh (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

this will take a few days. In the meantime, please double check for grammar, particularly tense. And I cannot quite identify just what prize the PM gave him. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Resubmission

Hi DGG, thank you for your previous suggestions about Draft:Magnum Research Limited. I have updated third-party sources and added more information (e.g. product lines, cooperations, and licensing) to the page. Could you please review the draft page again, or let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article?--Ria-TAN1995 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Resubmission of Draft:V-Nova

Hi DGG,

Many thanks for reviewing my first draft of this page. I hope I have understood the feedback correctly and addressed it in my resubmission. If anything remains unsatisfactory I would be very grateful if you can let me know what is specifically the problem. Similarly your input on ways to improve the page would be appreciated.

Thank you. IlanAstrug (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

new version

Thank you for your help! Please, see my new version "Draft:Eli Schechtman" Wiki82esh (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

New version "Draft:Eli Schechtman"

Thank you for your help! Please, see my new version "Draft:Eli Schechtman" Wiki82esh (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Saturday Jan 25: Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art

Jan 25, 12:30pm: Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for the Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art on the Upper East Side. Together, we'll expand Wikipedia articles on American history and art, and the understanding that all communities bring to American culture, as reflected in the Met collection up until ca. 1900. With refreshments, and there will be a wiki-cake! Open to everyone at all levels of experience, wiki instructional workshop and one-on-one support will be provided. Saturday Jan 25 Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 12:30pm - 4:30 pm at Uris Center for Education, Metropolitan Museum of Art (81st Street entrance) at 1000 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan (note this is just south of the main entrance) Galleries will be open this evening until 9 pm, and some wiki-visitors may wish to take this opportunity to see exhibits together after the formal event. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends, colleagues and students! --Wikimedia New York City Team 21:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Draft:Sebby Frazer

Hi DGG.

How did you come to review Draft:Sebby Frazer. It was not submitted. Do you patrol new pages in draftspace? Is that usual?

This goes to the question of why do anything with things like this. If you did not MfD it, wouldn't it have been nominated for G13 in six months with zero page views? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Certainly I review new pages in Draft space—it is one of the options at Special:new pages. I look for several things. 1/material that must be removed or even oversighted 2/the very worst of the playing around 3/the most outrageous of the advertising, especially if they look like undeclared paid editors 4/reasonably acceptable pages from people who abandon them and that either can go in right away or at er a copy edit or two,

My view is that the sooner the better the top and bottom of the pages are dealt with the easier it will be later on for everyone. This is especially true for the attempted contributors whom we need to very strongly discourage—they should be dealt with right off.

Opinions vary about how drafts should be handled, just as with everything else here. We do not know what really works best, or even if there is one way that works best. We not only can tolerate a great deal of variation, we should have a great deal of variation and experimentation , as long as we don't confuse the beginners or make contradictory statements about policy. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

as long as we don't ... make contradictory statements about policy.

I have been wondering, am I being chided about making contradictory statements about policy? These statements were at WP:MFD, a place without much exposure to readers, or even to the average editor. I think the statements came from a disagreement of interpretations, and such disagreements should be aired at suitable forums, like that, and then it was immediately resumed at the linked discussion at WT:CSD (where, you were proved correct). If you think it desirable for me to strike old misstatements, please say so, and I will likely do so. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Eli Schechtman copyvio

I've rewritten a paragraph in Eli Schechtman that was copied from the YIVO Encyclopedia article on Schechtman: the paragraph beginning "Although Shekhtman received several Israeli literary prizes", added in this edit by an IP (who I suppose may or not the same person as the editor predominantly responsible for the draft). Do you think you could have a look through the article for any other passages that might have similar issues? There are some close-ish paraphrases I think, but I was hoping to just do a quick copyedit and don't really have the time to look into it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I had done a check against the print version, but I may have missed something., so I will check again. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Aerospace (journal)
• Draft:Horatio Chapin
• Draft:InFactory Solutions
• Draft:MotoArt
• Draft:The Karl Adam Bonnier Foundation
• Draft:Wickliffe Syiem

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Enterprise Detection and Response

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation/primary page question

Hi DGG, hoping you might be able to help with something given all your experience. Hassan Diab is an article about a Canadian academic/alleged criminal, whereas Hassan Diab (politician) is the article about the current Prime Minister of Lebanon. Just wondering if the latter should be the primary article, or at least a disambiguation page, but I'm not 100% sure how to go about deciding/changing this. Can you take a look and see what you think? Thanks Melcous (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

New article name change request: Royal and Venerable Confraternity of the Most Blessed Sacrament of Mafra

Hi User:DGG Could you/another person with the required level of access change the heading of this article from the current: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_Venerable_Confraternity_of_the_Most_Blessed_Sacrament_of_Mafra (Royal and Venerable Confraternity of the Most Blessed Sacrament of Mafra) INTO Royal and Venerable Brotherhood of the Most Blessed Sacrament of Mafra. Many thanks Melroross (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Paul J. Tesar

Hi DGG, Thank you so much for taking the time to review and provide comments on my draft. I’m really sorry the article is lacking. I tried to be responsive to the first reviewer’s comments to substantiate notability, but perhaps the edits went too far in the other direction. I would really appreciate your expert advice in improving the page. Your comments are very helpful, and I will work on rewriting the article in a more encyclopedic format. Please let me know what else I can do to improve the article. Marissascavuzzo (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Philippe Viser
• Draft:Philippe Viser
• Draft:Tulip diagram

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Agathe Singer
• Draft:CloudMosa
• Draft:Frank Ravanelli
• Draft:Frank Ravanelli
• Draft:Order of Franciscans Ecumenical
• Draft:Paul Matsudaira

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal

Indeed. What I've read has been that the subject hired some editors to create a promo piece which stuck even though he is not really notable. Some experienced, well thought of editors made it a vehicle to showcase the subject's domestic abuse. And that doesn't look notable either. The subject keeps trying to hire UPE's and declared PAID's to whitewash/balance the article, and the regular editors vigorously oppose those efforts. They are quite insistent that the page remain as a showcase of the subject's domestic abuse. I think it's trash, but I guess we are going to keep it..-- Deepfriedokra 05:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

that sort of sequence has happened before; it also happens with consumer complaints. There's sometimes a certain satisfaction in getting the subject hoist with his own petard. DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

request

Hi DGC, could you please help with something? Thanks Jp7311 (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Request

Hi, DGG. I notice you declined the draft Manuel Muñiz on 16 January. I wonder if, as the man has been freshly appointed as Secretary of State (roughly a junior minister) in Spain, you may review the decision (per WP:POLOUTCOMES sub-cabinet officials are usually deemed notable), possible trim if they current content is deemed some kind of puffery notwithstanding. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The first thing I did was move the paragraph and references about this to the top, so it will be quickly visible. Next step is a quick despam, which I can do unlessyou get there first, and then I'll accept DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Martha Boneta

I submitted a draft written about this subject and it was declined for being advocacy. Please help me understand what specifically would need done to have this reviewed as a Wikipedia article. She is an advocate so I am not sure if that is why or if there is specific wording that is not allowed. I wrote the facts as stated in reliable sources but I obviously got something wrong and apologize for that. I am more than happy to work on the draft of you can give me some advice on what is needed. Thank you for the help. --Narksajax (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Unreviewed Pteronia glauca

Hi DGG! I just got a note on my talk page that you unreviewed Pteronia glauca. I'm still pretty new to NPP, so I'd love to know if there are any special guidelines for plants that I may have missed, or why you thought it should remain unreviewed. Thank you very much for your help! Mcampany (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Mcampany,I clicked the wrong button.The article is perfectly fine DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then I've re-reviewed it. Thank you! Mcampany (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you take a quick non-SPI look?

DGG, can I ask you to take a quick a look at the "Nomination of Stone Pagamentos for deletion" section of User talk:Franciosi? They seem to have admitted to block evasion and a note from an admin might be useful. Thanks in advance.

yuck

FWIW I totally agree with your g11 here. This is a classic example of UPE/CoI WP:ARTSPAM. Praxidicae (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)