DGG (NYPL)

I'm User DGG, and this is my alternate non-admin account as
Wikipedian in Residence at the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts, from September 2012 through August 2013

If you want to reach me quickly, use the talk page at my regular account, User talk:DGG; I use this only when I am at the library or doing something related.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right. What fooled me was the term they use for the catalog: ":Classic catalog". I will fix it--the whole article needs a good deal of expansion in any case and I intend to do it. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

AfcBox proposal

Dear DGG (NYPL):

Several editors expressed similar concerns about my proposal at User:Anne Delong/AfcBox that editors who weren't experienced at finding sources might not be able to contribute. I added a new choice to my proposal for the person to ask for help and be given a choice of three places to ask. Please look and see if this addresses your concerns. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Major Redesign in 2013" on NYPL

DGG (NYPL), the way you've edited the "controversies" bit about NYPL's website and online catalog makes it sound like the "major redesign" in 2013 was related to the catalog interface. In fact, it was just a home page redesign and intentionally avoided any changes to the catalog interaction (see http://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/05/09/our-new-home-page-search-dominance-and-nypls-goals for more info). I'm not aware of any major redesigns in 2013 that bear upon the online catalog. Could you either strike that change, reword it, or if you disagree with me add a citation? Thanks.

Nallatech

Is this really David Goodman? Surprised at you nominating an article for deletion without checking google books, it easily meet GNG. Scottish Equity Partners too has 1500 hits in books/magazines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I accept that Nallatech is widely enough used, and I'm withdrawing. I saw refs for SEP, and they seem mostly mere notices. My attitude towards articles on organizations is changing to a very high degree of skepticism. Possibly too far--I need to think about it. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

In residence, huh? Good for you, DGG. Don't know how the food is in that dorm--this one may not be much better. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

isn't a dorm, it's a library; they have a café. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

And you can wash it down with this. But this is 10PM on a Saturday--you are, no doubt, setting Manhattan on fire. Enjoy. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Some nonsense going on that you might find amusing...

See Talk:Novacam_Technologies#Contested deletion. Let's just say that I got really peeved earlier today to see a speedy delete notice placed on Interferometry. – Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_%282nd_nomination%29

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_(2nd_nomination). Benboy00 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC JJ Books was accepted

JJ Books, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Neighborcity article

User DGG (NYPL), I have a good rating on the real etate information website and app, Neighborcity, so I'm not inclined to edit the article because of my potential tie to the entity. NeighborCity is also in a landmark antitrust lawsuit with the National Association of Realtors and the Multiple Listing Service that realtors post real estate ads to. This subject deserves coverage when people search for the NeighborCity lawsuit because it impacts the one and a half million real estate agents, brokers and commercial agents of which I am one, and then the millions of homebuyers each year who are likely to be impacted if the association ends up with evaluations and ratings of all of its member-brokers and agents.

If there is a problem with the litigation section, or other sections of this page, then why not fix it? If a salaried marketing assistant or intern at the company or a hired person wrote the article in the first place, write over their work like the last 12 months of editors have. I saw the link User Rybec posted, and it doesn't look like the page creator was actually blocked until months after the article was created. I'd like to see increased interest in the Neighborcity lawsuit, not less.64.182.119.244 (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

4Culture perspective

Hi DGG, I'm hoping to discuss your recent proposal to delete my entry for 4Culture, I realize that you are a much more dedicated wikipedian than I am so I hope you will help me through this process. I think that it is particularly important that we discuss this here on your New York Public Library of the Performing Arts page as this is an important cultural discussion and it strikes at the roots of perspective and the arts.

Your first argument for deletion was " relatively minor branch of a county government", since 4Culture is the LARGEST FUNDER individual artists in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States I would argue that it is in fact a major cultural factor in the region. I realize that we are small potatoes compared to the funding organizations in NY, but I hardly think that makes one of our organizations 'minor'. Since 4Culture is also not a branch of County Government I also felt this was not a valid argument.

Your second argument was "no third party sources, and none would be expected except routine notices." I also disagree with this statement because at least one of my sources was third party. The Seattle Times article demonstrated the tax structure (and struggles) that 4Culture has had as it has grown. I felt it was important to include the state resources (which I assume you would consider 2nd Party sources?) because I felt that those were the most reliable sources for information for budgeting and legal structure.

I clearly do not start many articles in Wikipedia, but I greatly admire what it does for our culture and I only push for a handful of articles which I truly feel are lacking. I started the 4Culture article because I was seeing it repeatedly referenced in Wikipedia (and in popular culture) without any simple explanation of what it was or what it does. It has helped launch the careers with early funding for many artists from Sherman Alexie to Lynn Shelton, it has also been key in developing one of the first percent for public arts programs in the county and is one of only a handful of funding options available for heritage programs.

I hear what you are saying about finding more well rounded sources for this article. I had literally 100's to choose from and picked a few that I felt gave a broad take on the organization. I will list some more if you think my selections are too narrow but please do not delete this article based on it being 'minor', that would be an insult not only to myself but to anyone that enjoys a broad range of arts in our region. I will also post this on the 4Culture discussion page, maybe it would be best to continue this discussion there? thanks! Lumpytrout (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

certainly I would much rather see the article improved than deleted.all means improve the article rather than delete it. What it now needs most , I suggest, is reducingthe amount of conventional jargon in section 3. That's what tends to give a promotioanl impression, which may be undeserved. It would also help to reducethe number of uses of the full name of the group. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review?

Hi, I'm thinking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Robertson ''GQ'' interview controversy should be overturned to no consensus but would like your opinion and possible support, if you agree. The content was generally washed away from Phil Robertson's BLP, and now an effort to trim it down as much as possible is taking place at Duck Dynasty, the article from where it was spun out. The admin has been unresponsive after initial dismissal of concerns. I think a stand alone article is appropriate and would allow the other articles to address Undue concerns by having just a summary. I'm concerned we are white-washing the notable impact of the events, and i think a stand alone would help address that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sportsfan5000, I've just seen this--I use this account infrequently as a non-admin account--if you want to reach me, use User talk:DGG. I think the current merge is adequate. The closer has, as you say, had several decision overturned or in process of being overturnied, but a decision to merge is rational--the alternative close would have been delete, not keep. My suggestion is that if coverage of this continues for another year or so, then might be the time to talk of long-term impact. What happens at DR is anyone's guess, but that would probably be the conclusion there also. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Actually the situation may be addressed as Phil himself is co-authoring a book, that will, according to him, address the controversy. So it will be a few months but I'm in no hurry. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phillip J. S. Richardson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winthorpe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello DGG (NYPL). This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi DGG (NYPL),

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DGG (NYPL). Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

/Thomas Heftyes Gate (Oslo) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect /Thomas Heftyes Gate (Oslo). Since you had some involvement with the /Thomas Heftyes Gate (Oslo) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)