User talk:DGG/Archive 175 Aug. 2021

                                       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

Hi DGG. Lately, I've been doing a lot of silent watching of discussions on various pages, and I've seen your recent comments about being unhappy with some attacks on you. I've looked around, and I think I understand what this is about. I'm commenting to you here because it looks to me like you are experiencing very much the same kinds of things that I experienced, as can be seen at the top of my user talk page, not too long ago. And in fact, it involves the same editor. For me, this occurred during the two ArbCom cases, about Medicine and about RexxS. I point this out because I empathize with you, and I have respected you for as long as I have been here. I guess I just want to give you some words of encouragement. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's curious how the topic area involved in these and so many other recent conflicts has been medicine. I wonder whether it is the topics, or the people interested? To fight over politics, that's something I could much more easily understand. DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Especially disheartening to me was the pile on of an AE report, lack of clerking, unhelpful walls of text, and back and forths between editors talking about something entirely out of scope of the AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About whether it's the topic of medicine, or about the people who are interested, these are complex factors, but in the most immediate sense, it's a few of the people. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I'm fine with taking the position that we should not create a false equivalence between the scientific consensus and dissenting views. My problem is with personalizing the debate instead of focusing on the content, ascribing motivations to those with whom one disagrees, and lecturing other editors in a condescending and demeaning manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants to create an equivalence. But also we do not want to exaggerate the difference. I have thought of a way of expressing it: The fringe is not the principle part of the carpet, but it is part of the carpet. This is distinct from pseudoscience, which is the floor painted in order to look like a carpet. And it's also distinct from mysticism , whcih is something not even in the same room. It's easy to distinguish between paint and carpet, but if we want to distinguish between the carpet and the fringe, we have to look at both carefully. The fringe has a purpose, which is to protect the carpet--which translates as providing a place for new theories to be tested. Without the fringe, the carpet starts to unravel; without the fringe, the science has no chance to grow and becomes obsolete.

In terms of people, those promulgating a minority theory generally have to shout to be heard, whic can be disturbing. But those holding on to a conventional theory may become over-defensive, which is equally disturbing. If they try to defend themselves by removing those who disagree, it looks just the same as censorship.

Let us say that I someone is thoroughly convinced from the molecular structure that a virus could not have come from a particular lab. In that case, it shouldn't bother them for people to say otherwise, because they can disprove it. If they're afraid they might be wrong, and their previous statements of certainty might come to look silly, then they are likely to react in a very hostile manner.

And so everybody shouts at each other, instead of trying to express not just the agreed state of the system, but the degree of uncertainty. And if 5 people are quarelling with 50, who is likely to end up being kicked out the door? DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting analogy. But I would argue that, in science, fringe is not quite the same as in carpets. Fringe goes beyond minority scientific opinion. When it comes to what Wikipedia tells readers about human health, we can do real harm if we mislead them – and there's an important responsibility not to do that.

In the COVID topic area, it's true that scientists are shouting at one another. Earlier, you pointed out, correctly, that it would make more sense for editors to argue about politics than about medicine. And in fact, the shouting between various scientific sources about COVID originates in politics, rather than medicine. By my reading (and, by the way, I absolutely do not want to get myself involved in editing about COVID, just don't want the aggravation), there is a majority scientific view that the origins of the virus are not definitively known, but that the zoonotic model is the most likely. There is also some scientific evidence that the virus could have escaped, accidentally, from some laboratory strains. But the idea that there is some conspiracy through which the virus originated as a bioweapon is floor painted to look like carpet. That conspiracy theory was first painted on the floor by the political right. In response, the political left, along with mainstream scientists, felt it was important to refute it. And they shouted that refutation too loudly, so that it became a political shouting match. It's probably true that Wikipedia is leaning too far in the direction of dismissing the lab-leak hypothesis, although there's a case to be made that we should be cautious about presenting anything short of scientific mainstream, in order to do no harm to readers and their health. And it will likely sort out in time, as the science inevitably sorts itself out.

So I probably don't lean so far towards wanting lab-leak content as you do, as a content decision regarding balanced NPOV. But I regard that as a content matter, one that should not be personalized nor made nasty. And that latter concern is what brought me to your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the politics of the origin of the theory. But it's nonetheless a little strange to see so many people here trusting the PRC.

Not giving bad advice about health is important. So is not giving bad advice generally--other things can be just as disastrous. But what is the right advice isn't always that obvious, and if you keep watching, it changes. Not all of medicine is an exact science. I think we might do well to limit the full rigour of MEDRS to therapy--it would diminish the scope for argument. And even so, even were we certain that the current authoritative review is finally the right one, unlike the previous version which also thought was finally the right one, and even if we ignore that fact that consensus views on treatment tend to have most of the recommendations uncertain or based on admittedly weak evidence. But in the end the physician and patient have to decide on something usually in the absence of firm evidence. Medicine is an art also, and art doesnt have a NPOV. (But then, I know that to some people here, what I just said is heresy: nihlism and abdication of responsibility

There's no reason we should all be expected to agree on what is appropriate content. But in the end, we must write an encyclopedia , and the only practical way to do it under our rules is compromise. We seem to spend much too great an effort in determining which way is right; there should be argument at first, because that's where we find ideas, and the we should find some way to conclude the argument. Consensus does not mean, find a solution everybody likes, but find a solution everybody can live with. It's like the perpetual debates at RSN--which is where most content disputes seem to take place: sources are relatively reliable at best, not absolutely reliable, and if we do not insist on our own exact interpretation, we can usually find some way of wording things. Or like the endless discussions at AfD--there are intermediate ways to present content , not just a decision between having or not having an article.

The relation to behavior is that as long as different people insist their view is right, and that it matters enough to keep insisting, insist becomes argue, then dispute, then quarrel, and finally fight. And once people fight, it's always personal. My prefered way ot handle some topics is to say, everyone who has commented should now do something else, and other people should take over, or even start over. This amounts to 2-way no-fault topic bans, and the idea has always been resisted bitterly, because in spite of what everyone says about being objective and impersonal, almost everyone feels in their hearts they are right, and the other guy wrong, and there's a peculiar idea we should do justice. What we need here is peace.We pay lip service to that when we say sanctions are preventative.--but people always think that what needs prevention is the wrongness being done by the other guy, who needs to be removed so we can do what is right. Look at any arb com case, and see our discussions of relative wrongness in setting remedies.

It could be different. There is one fundamental policy at WP I think was misconceived from the start, and that's the rule against content forks. It would simiplify so many things. But there's a naïve idea that there is always a NPOV. which is like saying an encyclopedia can be an oracle. What I think is NPOV is always affected by what I would like it to be. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(discussion stalker) I think the point that everyone insists their view is right is pretty spot on. I think that conflict arise from a sense of moral self-righteousness, and that we have tolerated too much out-group derogation style of rhetoric on wikipedia. It becomes almost impossible to have peace when disagreement is framed as the morally righteous vs. the evil genocidal maniacs of the world. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have previously worded it, we are not here to fix the world, we are here to provide the world with free information which hopefully other people can use for fixing it. Our only direct political role is to maintain our ability to continue to furnish free information.

Like all maxims, it needs commentary. First, it's the basis for including full information on things that need fixing, and on the views of those who do not want to change them. Even if we think of them as the enemy, and ourself as warriors, we can't fight without knowing about them. Second, this information is also available to those who we might think will do harm. But there's no idea or information or object in the world that cannot be used wrongly as well as rightly. The assumption of freedom of information is that full information will lead to correct action. Those who think ignorance is better would want to destroy encyclopedias, and against them we must protect ourselves. Those who think censored information is better are part-way along the way to wanting ignorance, and must be prevented from doing the encyclopedia even partial harm. As applied to recent questions, people seeking medical treatment need full information about incorrect treatments so they will know to avoid them, and why, and argue against those who would urge them to use such measures. If they come to the wrong conclusion from what we say, then we need to write more effectively. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge those involved in this discussion to consider whether they think wikipedia is still "censoring" the lab leak, given the current content in the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. What is missing? What else should be there that isn't? Abstract conversations about censorship, I think, too often become homes for the idea of righting great wrongs. Whereas the concrete process of reaching NPOV and V is a lot more muddy, and requires your input.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article is pretty decent at this point, but echoing DGG's point above, it took a whole lot of shouting by the minority-view editors to get to this point. It shouldn't be such an uphill battle to get fair and proper treatment of a minority view—that points to a failing in processes and policies along the way, even if the final product ultimately turned out ok. The lab leak theory was fortunate in the sense that it had a significant and vocal minority of editors pushing for expanded coverage. But consider the implications of such an uphill battle to get fair treatment for a minority view, if it were a much smaller and less vocal minority of editors. It's darn near impossible. Stonkaments (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting things done takes effort. Getting things done at Wikipedia takes long patient effort. A system based on multiple completely independent people can be very resistant, whereas a bureaucracy often has a weak spot. The method here is to push hard enough and long enough to accomplish something, without pushing so hard or so insistently that it gets people angry. If real prejudice is involved, this is not always possible. The circumstance that helped here was the greatly increased coverage that continued to develop. It also helped that the relationship to pre-existent political ideology was almost accidental. That the far right seized on this theory first understandably prejudiced people against it, but there isn't any intrinsic relationship. Areas where there is a direct relationship with deeply help political views are much more difficult. But it would certainly help if we recalibrated what we call "Fringe". . A politician looks for evidence that will support their view, a scientist looks for evidence that might show it in error. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might contribute to the apparent spirit of harmony, to remove all related topic bans. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(copied in part for convenience from User talk: Valereee)

Your discussion elsewhere (at Talk:Jennifer Manlove ) has led me to realize that I ought to change my standard practice in listing a scientist's articles:

Currently, I've only been adding lists of most cited articles. Most researchers want to give their most recent articles, and that's significant from their point of view--they need to attract students and postdocs. I have been thinking about routinely adding such a list if it isn't present. It is not only vanity or advertisement, but relevant to someone who might happen to have heard of a scientist, to wonder what they are currently doing as well as what they have done (and that relevance to the general reader is the basic criterion I use for content)

Your question there has shown me that I ought to do it, and I shall start adding it, when it's a person who is still active. i'm not sure how many to list, or if I should include the number of citations--because if it's a 2021 publication, there won't be many until 2022. I need to experiment, and then change the standard advice that I give. Meanwhile, I think you can do whatever is reasonable in the circumstances, as long as you say why they're included. This isn't one of the areas where articles really have a rigid standard form.

I want to thank you for leading me to re-evaluate. I keep saying people here shouldn't be stubborn, and that means me also. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're so very welcome for whatever small part I played. :) —valereee (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, was this deletion based on policy? It is strange to me that an essay is deleted just because its author is banned. The author has not touched the essay since he was banned from the topic. Francesco espo (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he wrote it before he was banned or topic-banned, it cannot be not deleted according to that reason alone; that rule only applies afterwards. The only time we retroactively remove edits is when it's a sockpuppet of someone who had been. previous banned, or if it violates some other policy. In a different context, UPE, I have found this quite inconvenient, and sometimes urged otherwise, but it is the policy. So the reason given by User:jc37 for the close is apparently a misunderstanding of policy, or else I misunderstand it myself; but there were other reasons in the discussion; I am not going to comment here about my opinion of them, or whether the close must be redone because only an incorrect reason was mentioned in it. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, this refers to the MfD discussed in the next item on this page DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you said on the close, what has been written by a banned of (when relevant) topic-banned editor should be deleted. I not only support the policy, I fought for it.

But does this apply only to what they have written after the ban (typically using as ockpuppet) or, in the case of a topic ban, ignoring the ban?

I tried very hard about 2 or 3 years ago to have it apply in the case of a banned or indefinitely blocked editor to everything they ever wrote (I was thinking of it in terms of people banned for undeclared paid editing; I do not recall whether the proposal I supported was to apply only to that situation, or in general). The community did not endorse it, and thus,,in dealing with UPE, we need to keep the earlier work they did unless we can find some other reason, which of course we often can). I would still support the proposal, either for UPE or in general. But as it stands, the policy is not retroactive.

As far as I can tell, the userspace essay in question was written before the topic ban, and therefore wouldn't be covered by the deletion policy. Or do I have the dates wrong?

I'm of course asking this not in context of what the essay happens to be about. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DGG. long time no talk with : )

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive289#Normchou. They said they just wrote the page "...to make [their] case clearer..." during the discussion that determined they they should be topic banned again. - jc37 22:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sure, I'm not (at least now) defending them or the context or the essay but they wrote it before they were actually topic banned. I'd absolutely love to use broad interpretation to retrospectively remove promotional editing. I have a list of at least a thousand pages somewhere that would qualify for G5, except we didn't catch the editor in time. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like you changed your mind. [1]

Anyway, I think I see how you are trying to frame this. And I have little doubt that you understand "during" process, and so on.

I think what concerns me the most is your carefully crafted phrasing "...unless we can find some other reason, which of course we often can..."

An interesting thing about being a closer is that generally you don't care. And I really don't. Where I care is about Wikipedia's policy and process (all of it) and the principles thereof.

But do I care enough about this instance to follow this path where this discussion would seem to be going? prolly not.

I think I'm going to lean towards the wisdom of this comment.

I'm going to revert the MfD close. I'm not going to muddy up the logs though, whoever eventually closes can undelete or keep deleted at their discretion.

Happy editing... - jc37 17:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37, I think what you've done is very wise. By allowing another uninvolved admin to come along and redelete, you would be further establishing that the consensus is there for deletion. If an uninvolved admin finds your original argument unconvincing, they would be demonstrating further that no consensus exists as to how WP:PAGs apply here. Good mop. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I was carefully suggesting you find another reson from among the ones given. It was intended a carefully crafted hint. And yes, I'd rather keep it, but if it is deleted it should be for a policy-compliant reason. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG, I am a Wikipedian on the French pages and I write about many subjects (women, Africa, star war, architects, culture, construction, etc.) When I saw that the pages of people I know well like Jean-Luc Sandoz and Lambert Sonna Momo were created by the EPFL, I only allowed myself to contribute with photos and sources I had to improve them. My English is not good enough for me to do more.

I work for these two people so I know them but in no way was I paid for these voluntary contributions. But my English is not good enough for me to write and correct sentences that are perhaps too promotional. Please help me if you can.

I have translated Professor Julius Natterer's page into English in the hope that one of his English-speaking students can complete it.

My contribution history is here https://fr.wikiscan.org/utilisateur/Yasminkaa I have never been paid and I am faithful to the values of WP: sharing, transmission, contribution, help, free. Feel free to correct theses pages.

I copy this declaration on this 3 pages, thank you for understanding.

--Yasminkaa (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG,

I wondered if you could review the article I have submitted. It has been rejected twice for publishing and I am not sure why as the subject is notable. At least there seems to be enough evidence that it is.

Thanks for your help.

Vedlagt (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vedlagt this refers to Draft:Laurence Myers -- it has now been rejected 3 times by three separate reviewers, one of whom left detailed comments. The best chance for going forwards is to find a comprehensive artice on his work somewhere--rbrn an editorial obit would help,. . The other key question is to what extent were his inventions commercially exploited. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, hope all goes well. Could you please move the South African Jews article to its long time previous correct name of History of the Jews in South Africa to match all the other articles that are all titled on WP: "History of the Jews in ____". See the comments of the guy who messed this up recently here, very silly reason he gives for changing it. Let me know when it's done and I can fix all the redirects if need be (there shouldn't be that many). Thanks so much for all your help. Kind regards, IZAK (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done. If any double edirects need deletion let me know. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Over the years I try to make sure that these type of articles are all uniform on WP to read "History of the Jews in ____" otherwise there can be so many variations that it becomes confusing. Thanks again. IZAK (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, Thanks for initial review of the article "The Leader Who Had No Title", and moving it draft page. You have briefly mentioned that it's not ready for Main space. Please provide some review comments and suggestions for improvement. I would greatly appreciate your constructive comments Dhy.rjw (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhy.rjw , it needs substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Barnes and Noble. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you so much. Actually, I did my best working on this draft but the case that still needs more to pass to article space. Please if you could help in rewriting it the way you think it is correct then please do.Humble84 (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humble84 , there's something necessary that you could do much better than I: that is translate the titles of each reference and the name of the publication into English. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I messed up with this move by adding an extra "the" to the title: History of the the Jews in San Francisco. Could you please move it to just History of the Jews in San Francisco (from Jews in San Francisco). Thanks so much! IZAK (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG: Please see Category:Jewish-American history by city, where 18 articles are all "History of the Jews in ____" as is the norm for these type of articles, however two need changing:

1. Jews in Los Angeles needs to be moved to History of the Jews in Los Angeles
2. Jews in New York City needs to be moved to History of the Jews in New York City.

Thanks so much for all your help. IZAK (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From Canada

Please move Jews in Montreal to History of the Jews in Montreal.

• I've done all of these. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much! IZAK (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I did my best in translating it. I hope it is more appropriate nowHumble84 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your editcount on the Xtools sidebar when I was looking at an AfD. 300,094 to be exact... here's to 300,000 more! jp×g 07:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox artist on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG: Thanks for all your help so far. I found another case, where Judaism in Nepal should correctly be History of the Jews in Nepal to match all the others as "History of the Jews in ____". Thanks so much for this. Kind regards, IZAK (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Full Disclosure: Please SEE the old discussion (2014) about this at: Talk:Judaism in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'? that created this situation in the first place. IZAK (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

these discussion started at WP long before 2014--I stopped participating very early. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help! IZAK (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Sorry DGG, but where do you find this "current consensus" for a move back to History of the Jews in Nepal? The last time this was discussed, there was an RfC leading to a consensus to move away from that title, in the very section IZAK was fair enough to link you to. After that, there was only IZAK himself move-warring against the implementation of that consensus for some while, and expressing dissatisfaction with it on the talkpage, as a minority of one, until the consensus was confirmed in another discussion at ANI in September 2014, in which, incidentally, you expressed a minority opinion in IZAK's favor. I happened to close that discussion, re-implementing the move to the other title (which is the only reason your recent move lighted up on my watchlist). There's been no further activity on the talkpage in the 7 years since then – not a single posting, in fact. Unless there's been some other recent discussion somewhere else that I missed, I don't see anything to overturn that consensus status quo, other than this single editor's persisting dissatisfaction with it, and if there was such a discussion, I wouldn't see you in a good position to close it as an uninvolved administrator, given your previous participation in the debate. Would you please revert your move? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intent of getting into a debate on the subject, at least not here. The way we title articles in a group of articles on the same subject in different countries should be consistent, and that's how I read the results of the most recent RfC on the general question. I don't think a 5 year old RfC that came to a conclusion about one specific article in the series to be binding over a recent general result. I'm not going to express my opinion in detail of the argument at the 5 yr old discussion, but to be honest, I find most of them absurd, including some of Izak's. Izak asks me for hellp because of my general awareness of the subject field, not because I agree with him on anything important concerning the Jewish religion. Our religious opinions are probably as far apart as any 2 Jew's opinions can be,--if Izak even considers me a Jew. (the details are not relevant at WP; I'll discuss them if asked, but in private) What knowledge I have on the subject is due to my fascination with complex legal and quasi-legal systems, such as WP.

I made the decision thinking it was routine; I continue to think it routine, and I see no need to reverse it, for it seemed and still seems utterly obvious to me. If you do not think it obvious, I have no intention of quarreling with you--you're welcome to reopen a RfC. You're even at liberty to change it back, for I've said since the beginning that any admin may reverse any if my admin actions, as long as they let me know, (i am quite aware that very few admins here think this way, but I suggest we'd be better off if others did likewise)--but I think a more definitive way of seeing if your view still has consensus is to ask the community. A discussion is better not begun with a quarrel, but a question. One of the notoriously ambiguous areas in our rules is what of two positions is actually the status quo. I try not make the assumption that anything is. If I'm going to get into a serious argument, it will not be about article titles, We would have done much better to design the software so there could be equally valid alternative titles. I don't think this will happen, because people here seem to want to reduce real questions of importance into trivial ones of style. To the best of my memory, the only time I ever closed a title RfC was on a subject where I had special knowledge, and the title dispute echoed an identical dispute in the RW, and I asked both sides in advance if they would accept my decision. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you about where the discussion about that "current consensus" was, and you speak about a "most recent RfC on the general issue" – but where is that RfC? I haven't seen any.

And, just to clarify something you said, do you consider your move an "admin action"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it was technically an admin action because it was necessary to delete the redirect. I was relying on the discussions of other geographies, and it made no sense to me that this would be different. (I've jus trealized that it might also have been possible for non-admins with file mover user-right, but it depends on the details). Really, I'm not the person you want to fight with; in fact, I'm not a person you can fight with because I do not fight over article names. Those who care can fight, if they truly think it worth the trouble. WP has real problems that need careful and nuanced admin action, bit this isn't one of the. I'm not going to let myself distracted by trivia like this, though I'm sure the various UPE and promotionalism-pushers would be glad to see me pay them less attention. Do what uou like, and discusss it where you like, but the subject is closed here. DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who's fighting? I asked you a perfectly polite question for clarification, as a fellow administrator. The passive aggressiveness of your replies doesn't reflect well on you though. In any case, I take it there wasn't in fact any such "most recent RfC on the general issue". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise. If you want to know my actual thoughts: I relied on the discussion Izak linked above about Jews in other countries, and made the assumption that this would be similar, not thinking of any reason why it should be different. I saw that discussions had flipped back and forth earlier, and I assumed it would be exactly analogous to this. You apparently either disagree with respect to countries in general, or only with this particular country, or possibly disagree with respect to countries in general but only care about thiis particular one. I cannot tell, so which is it ? Then I will know what to respond to. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. You have now referred to some discussions three times in three postings of yours, and I have twice already asked you to please tell me where those discussions are. What "discussion Izak linked above about Jews in other countries" are you talking about? IZAK linked only to one discussion that I can see, and that wasn't about "other countries" – it was exactly the discussion about this one article, which went against him. You have now referred to (1) "the most recent RfC on the general question" (one RfC, in the singular?), then (2) "the discussions of other geographies" ("discussions" in the plural, but not formal RfCs?), and now (3) "the discussion Izak linked above" (in the singular again?). Do you see that something doesn't work out quite right here?

As for your question: it's not about any opinion of mine at all. Unlike you, I have never expressed any editorial preference in this debate, and I don't plan to get involved in it now. I determined a consensus as an uninvolved closer once (in the follow-up discussion at ANI that confirmed the consensus of the RfC on the talk page), and my only interest in this matter is the procedural issue of not having this formal consensus overturned gratuitously and out of process. That consensus was that the topic matter of this article is sufficiently different from other "History of ..." articles to warrant a different naming, for the simple reason that there isn't really anything worth calling "history" there. It's not my job to judge the correctness of that opinion; what I assessed was that it was a reasonable and legitimate editorial position and that it was the predominant one in that debate (and that, later, a predominant majority of observers agreed that the initial closer had correctly assessed it the first time round). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I relied on he comment is section 8.7 above, which I'll quote:

8.7 Admin move requested [edit source | quick edit] | Close

Hi DGG, hope all goes well. Could you please move the South African Jews article to its long time previous correct name of History of the Jews in South Africa to match all the other articles that are all titled on WP: "History of the Jews in ____". See the comments of the guy who messed this up recently here, very silly reason he gives for changing it. Let me know when it's done and I can fix all the redirects if need be (there shouldn't be that many). Thanks so much for all your help. Kind regards, IZAK (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC) (reply) done. If any double edirects need deletion let me know. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC) (reply) Thanks so much. Over the years I try to make sure that these type of articles are all uniform on WP to read "History of the Jews in ____" otherwise there can be so many variations that it becomes confusing. Thanks again. IZAK (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC) (reply)

I assumed it was an accurate statement of consensus, as I saw all the other names being moved just as he said--the ones he needed me for were he ones with redirects to be deleted. It's always possible I didn't look carefully enough. I have a error rate of about 1%, and a disagreement rate where I don't think it's an error, but other people do, of about twice that. I thought the consensus had shifted on this one also. But then, I never assume a 7 year old consensus is still active (we've stopped assuming this at afd, which i work on more ) DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in what IZAK wrote to you was there any reference at all to a "discussion", let alone an RfC. I still struggle to understand how you could think there was such a discussion, and even that you yourself had *seen* it and *read* it – which is what you explicitly claimed above, twice – when such a discussion plainly didn't exist and all you had was actually this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

all i had was a good faith request for routine action that seemed justified. That's what I usually do when it seems obvious. If I thought about the RfC at all, I would have considered it obsolete. As I said said before, if you want to revert, revert. I won't challenge it. if you're trying to get me to say I was wrong, I already said I might have been.The usual solution, if someone thinks an rfc is being ignored 7 years later, is to bring another rfc to confirm it. Please do not post on this here again. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi, DGG, I came upon your message at Talk:Commissariat-General for Jewish Affairs#Feedback from New Page Review process but couldn't find the feedback you mentioned. Nbd, that's a 2-year old thread.

More interesting to me however, is that you also mentioned "many more similar topics where we need articles written or translated". Do you maintain a list of such topics somewhere? If so, could you add a link pointing to it on my Talk page? I work on French or Jewish topics needing translation; my list is here. Feel free to work on any of those if you feel like, just add a little comment there to let me know you're on it. As it happens, I just launched Antisemitism in France, which still needs work if you're interested. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know everything I'm going to say, based on your User talk:Mathglot/Translations needed

But this is my standard list I tell peple.)

There are multiple lists, all under the general wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. The most relevant ones are likely to be:

• Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages WP:FAOL/FR. obsolete, but still interesting. Some are terms that do not reall correspond to anything in English.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr (even older)
• this is the main current list of articles needing expansion.cleanup.
• Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English (mixed languages--some are rather subtle problems
• see particularly: [[2]]and

In practice, I tend to go a a related topic whee I'd expect French pages, and look for fr: links. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I remember that you were somewhat involved with Bernie Sanders-related articles. I have started a proposal to merge Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders into Bernie Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernie_Sanders#Merge_Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders_into_Bernie_Sanders Yleventa2 (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

The 19 Aug 2021 article in Dawn (newspaper) here would appear to me analogous to to a festschrift for Jamali.

I do understand why you have draftified it - irrelevant trivia, and poorly sourced sobriquets, and so on.

These things can be fixed.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this AfD:

I might have made a mistake by advocating for keep based on WP:ANYBIO #1. Today I made a thorough review of sources, when I saw the manner in which the award was included in the list of recipients (which surprised me). Basically - the award wasn't given to individual police officers. In my defense, I think that the coverage can easily lead someone to conclude that the recipients of the four medals are four individuals, but it is not so. Still, individuals were honored, insofar their names are noted in the text of the bill, and Biden remarked on theirs deaths in the signing ceremony. Maybe this is a "significant honor" under WP:ANYBIO, and #1 would still apply. I feel responsible for possibly influencing the discussion in a negative way, so I'm notifying you as a participant there. Please tell me if you think there's anything I should do. Cheers — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have often changed y own mind during an afd , sometimes by some specific matter brought up during the discussion, sometimes by just seeing the course of the argument; sometimes by looking once more a the article and the sourcing, and sometimes by just thinking about it myself. When that happens, I go back to the discussion and say that my views have changed, and why.. Sometimes my opinion hasn't completely changed, but I become less (or more) sure about it. When I start to have doubts about something I've said, I usually say so. Most other people in a similar position do that also; it's better than maintaining an attitude that once one has said something, one's views are settled forever., or that if they do change, one doesn't want to admit it. People stubbornly maintaining fixed positions even after they've been shown to be wrong can be quite a problem here, as I'm sure you'll have seen in other discussions. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DGG, I came upon your message at Talk:Commissariat-General for Jewish Affairs#Feedback from New Page Review process but couldn't find the feedback you mentioned. Nbd, that's a 2-year old thread.

More interesting to me however, is that you also mentioned "many more similar topics where we need articles written or translated". Do you maintain a list of such topics somewhere? If so, could you add a link pointing to it on my Talk page? I work on French or Jewish topics needing translation; my list is here. Feel free to work on any of those if you feel like, just add a little comment there to let me know you're on it. As it happens, I just launched Antisemitism in France, which still needs work if you're interested. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know everything I'm going to say, based on your User talk:Mathglot/Translations needed

But this is my standard list I tell peple.)

There are multiple lists, all under the general wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. The most relevant ones are likely to be:

• Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages WP:FAOL/FR. obsolete, but still interesting. Some are terms that do not reall correspond to anything in English.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr (even older)
• this is the main current list of articles needing expansion.cleanup.
• Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English (mixed languages--some are rather subtle problems
• see particularly: [[3]]and

In practice, I tend to go a a related topic whee I'd expect French pages, and look for fr: links. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David,

The 19 Aug 2021 article in Dawn (newspaper) here would appear to me analogous to to a festschrift for Jamali.

I do understand why you have draftified it - irrelevant trivia, and poorly sourced sobriquets, and so on.

These things can be fixed.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sshirt58the point of taking something to draft is in order that it can be fixed, and has indeed been improved,but the author really shouldn't have moved it our themselves. I remain unsure of notability , and I may decide to let the community judge at afd,which is always the best course when uncertain or disputed DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this AfD:

I might have made a mistake by advocating for keep based on WP:ANYBIO #1. Today I made a thorough review of sources, when I saw the manner in which the award was included in the list of recipients (which surprised me). Basically - the award wasn't given to individual police officers. In my defense, I think that the coverage can easily lead someone to conclude that the recipients of the four medals are four individuals, but it is not so. Still, individuals were honored, insofar their names are noted in the text of the bill, and Biden remarked on theirs deaths in the signing ceremony. Maybe this is a "significant honor" under WP:ANYBIO, and #1 would still apply. I feel responsible for possibly influencing the discussion in a negative way, so I'm notifying you as a participant there. Please tell me if you think there's anything I should do. Cheers — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have often changed my own mind during an afd , sometimes by some specific matter brought up during the discussion, sometimes by just seeing the course of the argument; sometimes by looking once more a the article and the sourcing, and sometimes by just thinking about it myself. When that happens, I go back to the discussion and say that my views have changed, and why.. Sometimes my opinion hasn't completely changed, but I become less (or more) sure about it. When I start to have doubts about something I've said, I usually say so. Most other people in a similar position do that also; it's better than maintaining an attitude that once one has said something, one's views are settled forever., or that if they do change, one doesn't want to admit it. People stubbornly maintaining fixed positions even after they've been shown to be wrong can be quite a problem here, as I'm sure you'll have seen in other discussions. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Goodman, I am writing in the hopes that you can help me understand a Web of Science matter, and so that you can put me right if I am wrong. If I search Web of Science under publication title "Papers on Far Eastern History" then I get the listings of the articles from this journal 1975-88. I can later located them by searching accession numbers, for instance: A1987L181200002. That led me to write in the East Asian History (journal) article words to that effect and also raised it in the AfD as relevant (I'm new to AfD and have evidently not gone about it the right way, but that's not material to the question). Annother user says that it cannot be verified and doesn't constitute indexing, etc. I'm a professional academic (with no COI for this journal, I hasten to add), but not a librarian. Am I wrong on this? I'd be grateful if you could put me right if I am, both as regards this article but also to make sure any claims I make about indexing in future are correct. With thanks for assistance either way, Sheijiashaojun (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One has to look at the actual Master journal list, [[4]]--doing so, I find it is not listed. This comes about because is a paper in a listed journal (called a citing jpournal) might refer to a paper in this particular series. (a cited journal). The publication being referred to will necessarily be included,, because that's the nature of a Citation index.But "indexed" in the real sense means that each of the items in a publication are analyzed to see what they cite.-- that the journal is a citing DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC) .[reply]

Hi Mr. Goodman, thanks for commenting. I hope you don't mind my following up, because I am genuinely trying to understand. Is it not the case that the Master journal list is only for presently listed journals? It says here those "currently covered" (so Papers wouldn't appear, and searching it couldn't produce it whether it was indexed or not, no?). https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/master-journal-list/ If "Papers" was only being cited rather than indexed, what are the accession numbers doing? Doesn't accession mean that it's indexed? Running a number such as this one A1987L181200002 does show what they cite, not that it has been cited... Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its true that it is only for currently covered, but their coverage of social science and humanities was so much weaker in he past, that I think it unlikely. The ANs may possibly refer to another possibility, that individual special issues were indexed. I do not have the necessary access --Princeton cut off my remote access despite their promises a few years after I retired, and no public library in nyc has a full set of ISI indexes. Scopus hasalwayscovered historyenormously better thanISI,and it does not list either journal title.It also has a lis of discontinued titles. Neither include either title. See theAfD, DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheijiashaojun , I saw the letter you just. posted. I was going to suggest trying something like that. (but their user help was in my time much less responsive). I appreciate being taught something I hadn't realized. Keep up the good work. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is very rotten of Princeton to cut you off, if I may say so. It wouldn't be any better here in Australia, where my uni once cut off our visiting scholar the day before he left, so he couldn't get into the library to return his books... I also appreciate you patiently reading through all the convo and looking into the sources--I obviously have the AfD genre all wrong and annoyed people without intending to...And thanks for using your expertise to engage when you are asked for comment, and above all your faultlessly cordial tone. I don't know if I could manage; I'm almost done with Wikipedia. Too stressful, and too rude! Good on you. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheijiashaojun. please don't give up on us. There are some places which can get a llittle tricky, and where it is probably best to avoid until you've got experience. As you've discovered, one othem is AfD. The way to learn AfD is first to watch a few dozen varied cases, and then make comments at a few where you have something to add. Then take it from there. The same thing applies at RSN, BLPN, and any of the other noticeboards--especially other formalized discussions . Each has its own tone and its own conventions. Most people don't work at all of them. My specialties are AfD and RSN--I avoid most of the others.

All of our arguments are a little artificial--we usetrms of art, and we follow therules only when we want to. A clear consensus at a discussion can do anything--and tt hat's one of our basic principals, WP:IAR. Notability for journals is aparticularly tricky issue, because it goes by different rules than notability in general, but yet those rules have never actually been approved. (There would be very few journals notable by the basic guideline) . There are only about 5 or 6peoplewho pay it much attention, and it works because we usually agree. one of the things we do not agree about is notability for the more specialized humanities journals--I think every one in the regular discussions is a scientist. I usually take a broader view than the others, from my experience in a library that paid extraordinarily great attention to the humanities--there are some very good aspects to Princeton. With time, you;'ll learn what arguments work at various places, and which do not. My first articleherewas deleted, and that's true for many of the by now very experienced people. I could defend it now, I didn't know how to defend it then.

The great virtue of WP is that there is great freedom for everyone to work only on topics of interest to them, however specialized, as long as they meet the basic sourcing. The necesary precaution is to first make sure you first have the sources, and only then start the article. And once you have enough experience, you can try to extend the range of what counts as acceptable sources.

About half the people with early experiences like yours don't come back, and one of the things I try to do here with my 15 years of experience is to try to convince them not to leave. Once you know the sysem, it's worth it--and there's no where else where it's possible to have a similarly wide and serious influence . Ask me for help if you need it--a great many people do as you can see by this page.It's ok to ask by email. And if there's a dispute, ask early. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. Goodman. Thanks for the encouragement and the understanding. It's been quite bewildering to see the rules written down fairly clearly and then come to realise that in fact what operates is a bunch of unwritten conventions, and that appeals to the rules as written have little effect--and also that the scientists have the say, and that they are not especially sensitive to how humanities journals work, or why neither major database might be an especially good guide to what journal were important only a few decades ago, or in other places. (They are really brutal for Southeast Asia, where good journals in national languages will very rarely be on those rolls). Anyway, I suppose I'm better equipped now, but actually I didn't want to be learning about AfD! I just wasn't happy to see useful Asian studies journals get binned... Thanks also for offering to help further, I may take you up on it. But I probably won't want to create any journal that isn't already on Scopus or WoS...too much trouble, and not an overwhelming amount of listening going on. (I have to say, AfD in, French, for instance, seems more discursive and less brutal). Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Please guide me to edit and publish this Draft:Saleh Sokhandan After the removal of his article, Saleh Sokhandan attracted public attention for his numerous performances in Asre Jadid talent television competitions in Iran, and his art and creativity became more known than before.WPooya (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you need to source everything from a 3rd party reliable published source, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices . His own opinion can be quoted very briefly from his own publication, but that just says what he wants people to think about himself. The significance , interpretation, or meaning of his are must come from a 3rd party reliable published source. Any judgment about his work must come from. other people.

you cannot say in Wikipedia's voice "Sokhandan went on stage to show his skill and talent in an optical illusion. " You have to reference it by what someone else said. You cannot usevague terms of praise like skill or talent, except in a sourced third party quotation.

The English WP accepts sources in any language. But since most of our readers do not know Persian, the titles and sources of all references in Persian must also be bother transliterated acording to some standard scheme, and also translated.

You may not employ Youtube or a blog of any sort as a source. You can use Youtube as an external link to an artwork, but not a source within the article. Four illustrations of his work are probably too many for the article

But in a positive sense, you ought to prove notability by saying exactly which of his works is in a permanent collection of a museum. Each one should be referenced to the accession number in the museum. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I edited the draft, please review it again.WPooya (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WPooya you did not do some of the principal things I asked for:

If his work is in permanent collection of a museum, say so and give reference from museum. If on permanent public display, give 3rd party reference..

Non-English quotations should have translations added

There aretoo many examples of his work

In addition, the details in sec 3 are not of `ex interest.

There is no point resubmitting if you do not fix the problems. DGG ( talk ) 10:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance. I have no more resources to add. I edited the article and deleted the quoted, extra, and unsourced content. Would you please edit the article as needed to fix the issue for publishing? Can I submit the draft again?WPooya (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WPooya You can certainly at least translate the titles of the sources you use. Otherwise I have no basis for reviewing. DGG ( talk ) 09:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. WPooya (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your kindness. Can I remove template:Notability from the article?WPooya (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I thought this follow-up from Clarivate might interest you (and others, but I don't want to be thought to be bludgeoning that AfD again):

"Thank you for your email.

I have received updates from my Internal team regarding the list of journals that are historically in A&HCI. The team is not able to provide this list to external users.

At the moment, it is only possible to obtain a list of active A&HCI journals from the Master Journal List, https://mjl.clarivate.com/.

Having said that, the ability in having the historic information of journals available on the Master Journal List is under consideration by the Master Journal List team for potential future releases.

In the meantime, I would recommend that you reach out to us at ts.support.anz@clarivate.com for information on historically indexed journals (that are no longer current).

I hope this information manages to resolve your query. Please contact me if you require further assistance.

Thank you for your kind understanding."

With any luck we'll have the historic info in the Master Journal List soon and be able to avoid confusion such as the one surrounding EAH/PoFEH in future. And at least there is a responsive Clarivate address that can inform anyone who cares to inquire. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "The team is not able to provide this list to external users." is the sort of deliberate obscurity and unfriendliness to end users which gave a market opportunity to Scopus. ("not able to" as in all bureaucratic situations translates as either "we don't actually have one in usable form" or "for reasons that are so stupid or unflattering we don't dare tell them to you") Eventually ISI/Calarivate reacted, but it took them years. and apparently is still incomplete. The Scopus list, available from their main page [5] or convenientlyfrom [6] It is an very large awkward spreadsheet, but it contains everything. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

but I should admit to some conflict of interest with regard to. the two of them--see my earlier reviews: [7] [8]

yeah a bit unfortunate that WoS is so fetishised while simultaneously not properly navigated or transparent in its historic indexing. I don't know that research creates a COI! That just makes it expertise, unless you work for one or the other! No? I don't know what to do about that AfD, it's quite depressing that neither assertion of the nom is true (not selectively indexed, no independent sources) and it just doesn't seem to matter... Sheijiashaojun (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose there is anyone who does have access to WoS who could be called upon to independently confirm? It's really quite simple through publication title or accession number (for instance, A1984AAP5200002). It's so absurd...Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't really create a coi, unless you cite your own paper in an article. If so, you really have to either post it on the talk p for an OK, or at least say so--obviously I could post it here on my own user p., so I was deliberately and a little sardonically being over-careful. Any complicated system has absurdities. In many cases, they exist to deal with a particular real abuse, and become permanent and over generalized. If you keep a little psychological distance ,it can be fun. If you confuse it with the Real World, it isn't.

So let me tell you how afds really work: I (and I think most regulars, even if they won't admit it) look at an article, make a holistic judgement for what we should do with it, based on what we usually do and my ideas of what WP ought to do and what WP should be like and where my sympathies lie , and then I look for reasons to match that might convince people. For this, as for most disputable afds, I could construct an argument on either side. If it something I really care about deeply, I know I can always find a policy-based argument for what I want to do. That's why no one person gets to decide. . There is prejudice here, but there are also limits to it. It might be useufl to actually talk, if you want to email me to set it up. DGG ( talk ) 13:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my drafts? I am working on them. Please can you bring back the Idorsia draft. I forgot what I wrote there. I want to write about it and selatogrel. SacrificialPawn (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to declare not just that there is a connection, but what the connection is. If it is a paid connection, see the full details of what you need to say at WP:PAID. I will consider restoring the article only after a proper declaration. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idorsia is a company of a family member. I will add it to my COI declaration. I am not paid for my writing here and I plan to write more articles on biotech companies. SacrificialPawn (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response above. I may take you up on it if I decide to stick around. In the meantime, I notice that in a list a user provided of Asia-related journals, they mention China Communications, which is a real (and notable) journal, but the WP link given goes to the construction company. Not sure whether to disambiguate even if I don't intend to write the journal page? Or just leave it? Bringing it to you because the user will likely assume I'm just trying to provoke them. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually ended up asking directly and it was fine. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I made the draft "QuillBot" which got deleted (which I'm not fussed about, by the way), but I saw your message on my talk page saying I "have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor." I'm not a "paid editor", although I can see why it would've looked like that, but I don't know how exactly to 'adequately respond or take action,' and it said my account could be deleted. Advice would be appreciated :) Okay420 (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notice did';t say you were a paid editor-- it said that from your editing pattern, it appeared that you might be a paid or other coi editor. The pattern that you started one article, and it was on a minor internet related invention, tend to suggest that possibliity, . Do you have any connection with the subject of the article or t's inventors? That can be coi, though not paid, and still must be declared, though not in the same detail. If there's no conection whatsoever, say so.

Then you can demonstrate your bona fide editing by writing articles of notable subjects with which you have no connection whatsoever.

You will understand it's a difficult balance for us--we need to stop all the actual coi and paid editors, while doing aa litle collateral harm as possible, so sometimes there will be a false positive. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I should've also stated: I didn't have any connection to the subject at all. But, obviously, I don't want my account to be deleted, so do I need to worry about that message?

Had I meantto block you, there was a stronger message available. State what you just said on your user talk paeg--and it would help, tho it is not required, to explain why you happenned to choose that article. I assummed the mostl ikely reaosn was you were friends withthe founders. Then go ahead and edit, but be careful to pick subjects that are unquestionably notable and avoid anything that might be considered WP:Promotionalisn. My experience is that bios are easies tto start with, and it helps to first make sure you have the sources before starting the article. (By the way, some of my first articles were deleted, --your experience is not unique) DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I seem to recall this topic has come up before on this talk page or somewhere else. How broken is our AFD system, when a deletion discussion doesn't succeed in deleting a topic sourced by promotional advertorials and routine business info, such as at this AFD? This is the epitome of corporate intrusion into Wikipedia spaces. This is merely a product to help your company more effectively do advertising, marketing, sales, e-commerce, and customer service.

So how is this possibly notable or how does it have a significant impact? The AFD was closed keep based on the participants ivotes. And this continues to happen with other company articles that really don't merit inclusion. But there are not enough editors to stem the tide. I am thinking more help is needed in this area. At least until the tide is under control. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC) This brings up many related questions; I've discused them before, but. I'm going to use this to recapitulate.[reply]

I. Promotionalism. Promotionalism is what could destroy WP, because if we let people advertise or advocate, we'd soon be no more reliable than Google, or the internet as a whole. We can't expect to remove it completely. I think we're doing better with new articles--the AfC system removes about 80% of new attempts. Getting rid of earlier work is easy only on unwatched articles--removing those on subjects that have a following is much more difficult. Rather than try to remove the articles, I try to rewrite, but that is often resited also, and we have much better methods to remove entire articles than just disputed content. My current approach to these is to select a field, and go through it;, even though it will need to be done repeatedly--I'm now working on Category:community foundations. But the article you mention is about business software, and computer software and the internet generally havd from the beginning been our strongest field;I came here initially because I saw its quality--even the ones without real referencing but written by experts. This is not an area I'd choose to challenge.

In this and many related fields, any good descriptive article on a product or organization will in some sense be promotional. I define promotionalism this way:

• Promotional writing is what the subject would like readers to know about himself, in contrast to encyclopedic writing, which is what a general reader might want to know. The basic characteristics of promotionalism is that it provides the readers with what the organization would like to tell them, and is typically addressed to prospective customers/investors/donors/students/applicants/ etc. In contrast, an encyclopedia article is addressed to the general reader who may have heard of the organization, and wants to know what it is and something about what it does. . A useful rule of thumb is if it reads like an organization's web site, it isn't suitable for an encyclopedia .

We need more awareness by editors, not necessarily more specially devoted editors.

II. Discussing notability A system like WP, which depends on the consensus of the people who choose to participate at a given issue, cannot be expected to be consistent. The guidelines for notability and promotionalism leave considerable room for ambiguity at almost every word, and for any instance that isn't utterly obvious, could be used them to construct an argument for either keep or delete. In generaI most people decide on a holistic basis whether they think WP should have an article, based on considerations of notability , promotionalism , coi, balance, their own views of how deeply each field should be covered--all of which are relevant considerations, but also on personal interest, popularity, bias and prejudice.. The only alternative would be to remove all the rules containing the word presumably, or any other word that has scope for variability in interpretation (which is essentially every adjective in a human language) and use purely numerical definable factors or the presence of absence of particular clear-cut features, such as a defined list of awards, and then to have a rule that they must be interpreted literally and strictly without room for argument about whether there should be exceptions. Every such proposal has been rejected very decisively by the community. Nonetheless, in a few special fields, where all the active participants are in agreement, there are in practice such guidelines that are almost always applied literally regardless of whether or not individual instances seem absurd, and a few special factors that are taken to absolutely prove notability without paying attention to the ritual " "presumably" --but even so they can be over-ridden by other rules that have ambiguity, or by our fundamental policy of IAR. And our fundamental concept that the only real factor is whether the inclusion would or would not help the encyclopedia is eminently sensible--except that every individual here has a different idea of what would or would not help the encyclopedia .

Even were we to have strict rules, there would still be disputes about the strength of evidence needed to meet them, and the reliability of the sources used. (And recent disputes over article content have usually ended up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, for the currently fashionable way to change disputed content in an article is to find someway of rejecting the sources that support content one does not think appropriate; needless to say, these rules have analogous ambiguities to the rules on notability, and the usual decision in all but obvious cases depends not on the source, but the content it is being used to support. This favors the editors who are familiar with the practical aspects of how we make decisions, and adds to the difficulties of any good faith beginner.)

III. Notability in general What I've just said applies to operating with the concept of notability, but, I do not fundamentally agree with the entire general concept of notability. There are rather two questions: what should we have information on, and how should we divide it. I used to say that we should have any information people might look for in an encyclopedia , but that no longer makes sense because we've redefined the meaning. As we're not limited by size, and Verifiability is very easy to meet, it's more a question of what seems important enough that we look sufficiently dignified for people to take us seriously. That too is obsolete: people now know enough to take us seriously because we're useful because of NPOV and V. There's a great deal of distortion caused by the desire to have not just information on something, but a main article rather than a section. Some of it is caused by seo: the Googles rank much more highly a full article. I have always thought should ignore their needs and operate as if we were autonomous. (I recognize we're not, but rather mutually dependent: a meaningful amount of our traffic comes from them, but we tend to forget that if they didn't have our content they wouldn't be of much use except as an internet advertising directory--much of their value is that one can look up any subject however academic or exoteric, and find some reasonably honest and moderately accurate information). Desire for a full article not caused by seo-like reasons is a feeling that having a main article is a certificate of significance in the world; though I can see why people might think that way, I don't think that should be a key function of WP--we should decide on content and arrangement without any reference to that. But the concept of main article is so central here that we do not have the ability to maintain quality on any other basis than keeping track of what happens to main articles. I used to be a rather extreme inclusionist--I would still be, except for the threat of promotionalism--with the amount of advertising and advocacy that people would try to insert, we'd lose the value of NPOV, and NPOV and V are what are really important, what make it worth going on with the project.

IV. This article As applied to this article, there could have been more of an attempt at a compromise; tho there are too many products for just adding it in any meaningful way into the main Oracle article, there could have been an article for Oracle's SaaS or some other meaningful division. This AfD didn't really follow the standards for notability--it followed instead the general feeling that major commercial products should have articles. I don't consider that scandalous.

V. Working in WP If I did think it scandalous, here's my personal way of dealing with absurd decisions: Unless I care very much, and it's a field where I have special interest, I ignore them. If I do care enough and trust my knowledge and my ability to cope with those who think differently on the matter, I add them to one of my lists for decisions to revisit. Once in a while when feeling bored, or bold, or argumentative, I return to one of them. Sometimes I am successful because no one cares enough to keep track, or to care enough for a renewed argument, or the opposition has left WP or been discredited. If I lose a second time, I remove them from my list so I won't have to think about them further, except for the very few cases where I think an important principle is involved. If this keeps happening in a particular area, I leave the area. There are a great many things in the real world I think are terribly wrong, but know I cannot effectively help change; why should WP be different? True, we have eliminated the influence of brute force, and almost always of government censorship, and to a large extent even of money. But there remains bias, prejudice, special interest, miseducation, idiosyncrasy, and perversity, as well as the many phenomena that cause group decisions to be suboptimal. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG Thanks. You may not have intended it, but there is some really good philosophy in the above. I'm also seeing excellent thoughts on useful strategies that can be employed as a Wikipedia editor. You might want to consider writing a how-to-manual for Wikipedia editors and sell it on Amazon  :>) Uh-oh. Was that promotional?  :>) In any case, I might want to directly respond to some of this later ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - could you add a note to the PROD as to which page this duplicates? Where you thinking of List of organs of the human body? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Yuri Lakhtachev, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG, I see you are an administrator who is an active AFC reviewer. Would you be willing to assess the notability of Draft:Greg Fleming (businessman)?

Here is a sampling of nearly two dozen full, independent articles on him in major sources since 2006, when the Wall Street Journal called him "Merrill Lynch's Keystone":

In addition to extensive independent news coverage, nearly every book on the devolution of the subprime mortgage crisis covers Fleming extensively, usually on dozens of pages, because he saved Merrill Lynch from bankruptcy by orchestrating its sale to Bank of America (and at a remarkably high price) in September 2008. These books include: Andrew Ross Sorkin's Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System—and Themselves; Ron Suskind's Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President; Bethany McLean's and Joseph Nocera's All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis; and Greg Farrell's Crash of the Titans: Greed, Hubris, the Fall of Merrill Lynch. The books and page numbers are listed at the bottom of the above collapsed list of significant coverage.

The above-listed coverage is just a small sampling of the many dozens of news articles which have covered Fleming significantly over the past 15 years.

I am the creator of the draft; my COI is declared here.

Thank you kindly for your time. TerryBG (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at the AfC. `Freedom from promotionalism is as important as notability DGG ( talk ) 11:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr. Goodman. If you have a moment could you take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chan_Hok-lam? It got draftified, but I'm not sure whether now it's mainspaceable. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheijiashaojun I accepted it for mainspace. As usual, that's no guarantee against an AfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks! Sheijiashaojun (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, DGG. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia and I've got a lot to learn.

I'll revise my submission and resubmit when ready.

--Eduardo.GutierrezPena (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC) Eduardo.GutierrezPena, I added the citations for the most cited papers. On the basis of the usual result from AfD discussions, he's not likely to be considered to meeet WSP:PROF based on the citations alone. So you neeed sources , substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, to show his importance--either his importance in his profesion accordingto WP:PROF, or his general importance acording to WP:GNG. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A note about ICON Health & Fitness (now iFIT Health & Fitness): Although I never edited that article, I have it on my watchlist (and my userpage COI list) because it was a prospective client -- but they never finalized any requests for that article, and I never touched the article or made any edit requests on the talk page. The article I made one small (date correction) edit request to was iFit (brand), but that's all.

I notice you put a paid-contributions tag on the iFIT Health & Fitness article; however I don't see any edit requests or COI declarations on it.

I agree AFD-wise that now that the parent company ICON has been renamed iFIT, there's no reason to have two articles of nearly the same name (one for company and one for brand). I won't post on the AFDs; I'm just letting you know I never touched the article of the parent company (iFIT Health & Fitness). TerryBG (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have made a mistake, and will correct it. I think it's OK to comment briefly at the AfDs such as to suggest a merge--but not to then argue about it. DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]