User talk:DGG/Archive 179 Dec 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

Shamir Optical Industry

I saw your tag, and checked a few references. I guess the question is how to get the churnalism removed. I've tagged a couple of the refs, but not reading Hebrew and having to use translation is a hindrance. I think this was an erroneous acceptance at AFC, though I am 90% certain the org passes WP:NCORP Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I've left a request at Wikiproject Israel. That may help. I'm not sure how active the project is in editing articles, though Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent what else can we do with drafts in references in languages we can't read when the subject is notable? I have ones in Japanese in a similar state. There are too many for the few people willing to handle them properly, and, after all, it is a principle that we AGF and that references in any language are acceptable. Sometimes I'll take a chance with GTrans. Sometimes I'lll try to tell from the reference format. Sometimes if the person is around, I'll tell them to at least translate the references titles. But you're right, I should have done more of a spam cleanup myself--removing at least some is rarely difficult. DGG ( talk ) 15:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't even thinking of critiquing your actions. I noticed it (was on my watch list) and just took it a little further. Sometimes I do go through 100% of the references, but I chose, this time, to seek a Hebrew speaker. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that you and I probably go about afc the closest of any two reviewers, and if you see something you'd do differently, please do tell me. It's important that we exchange notes, as that's how i see these messages. For problems like this, the only way to figure out how to do them is experiment, and , like you, sometimes I'll try doing things a litle differently than my usual. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Hans Neu

Hello, DGG. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hans Neu, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

checked, non notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Botrytis Blight

Hello, DGG. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Botrytis Blight, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Gardenofaleph

Hello DGG,

I have been following the current sockpuppet investigation about myself and Gardenofaleph. I'm very concerned by the fact that he and I apparently are about to be blocked as sockpuppets of one another without anyone running checkuser, even though Gardenofaleph asked for checkuser to be run. It doesn't seem reasonable to refuse to examine the technical evidence in a borderline case like this one, or to assume that one of the accused parties' request for it to be examined must have been a bluff.

Is there any way for someone to run a checkuser? I'd encourage you to run checkuser on us yourself, if you have that power and would consider it appropriate to use it in this case. 2600:1004:B14C:FBAD:75DE:E94C:3E2C:6D31 (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not a checkuser. I gave up the role beaus Ido not have the necessary technical competence nor the time to acquire it. But I can tell you that the rule that we do not run a checkuser on request is a longstanding basic rule, and whether or not it makes sense is besides the point. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've now registered an account, although I won't be able to use it after I return the computer that I borrowed for this purpose. Does this change anything? The reason that was given for not running checkuser is that checkuser cannot be used on IPs, but now that I have an account there's presumably no reason to not run it. Alexg2021 (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Clay Reynolds Texas Author submission -- a response to your feedback.

FOR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clay_Reynolds_(author)

Thanks for your feedback (Sorry for the delay in responding because of the holidays). I thought I had addressed the questions of primary sources/reliable sources as thoroughly as I can. I had even used official wikipedia policy to support my reasoning. It is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Clay_Reynolds_(author)#MISUNDERSTANDING_OF_OFFICIAL_WIKIPEDIA_POLICY_ON_VERIFIABILITY_AND_SOURCING .

Also, I had pointed out a specific Wikipedia article (John Updike) that uses many of the techniques criticized by you. I'm just checking to make sure that you have read my statement and are familiar with the policy I am citing. It seems to me that you and the previous approvers are rejecting official wikipedia policy on the use of self-published sources or are just not aware of this policy.

Updike died a few years ago, and maybe different rules apply for that, but I have seen many examples of biographies of living persons citing statements by the wikipedia subject (for musicians, authors, intellectuals). To be fair, I have also seen examples of articles of living persons where there is no biographical section at all.

I have already included mostly secondary sources about his works. They are mostly book reviews, but there are a few critical essays about the works of Reynolds and encyclopedia articles. But my usage of primary sources here is allowable under wiki policy, appropriate for the subject and not excessive.

After reading your comment, I slimmed down two parts on EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION to make it more "neutral-sounding", but there's not more than can be done. The option you mentioned -- to remove the section on EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION and just focus on published works -- is something I could live with, but it sounds unnecessary. I have already provided 11 secondary sources about Reynolds books.

As an aside, I've been a blogger for over 20 years and I can say authoritatively that this draft does not resemble a blog post in the slightest :) Specifically, I have removed any phrase which might suggest an editorial judgment of my own and even gone out of my way to locate overly critical book reviews. I have tried simply to describe what the books are about the typical topics found in his essays. Let me know if you have any further advice or need more information about something. Robert J Nagle (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at your bio on your user page, which I should have looked at sooner, I see where you say your career is at least in part in publishing small press fiction and promoting authors, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor with respect to this particular author, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest And if hte connection has any financial aspects, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. I ask you the same with respect ot all editsyou have made involving other texasauthors.

From the information provided, Reynolds is a notable author. It would be a shame if he did not get an article because you are unwilling to write it properly. The first step is to remove all citations to what he says about himself except for one statement about his purpose or style, and all references to reviews that are not in third-party published independent reliable sources, which does not include press releases, blurbs, publishers statements, blogs, or noncritical local reviews. There should be quite enough left. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

REPLY: I was already aware of the Wiki policy about COI before writing the Clay Reynolds article.

Here's what happened with regards to Clay Reynolds. We have a common facebook friend (Robert Flynn, who was my college teacher whose wikipedia page I created over a decade ago). About 2 or 3 years ago I sent Reynolds a message saying, it's strange that there hasn't been a wikipedia page about you and your books, and someone (possibly me) should do one about you. He didn't get back to me for over a year, and then out of the blue, he wrote me and asked about it (I'd forgotten I'd even contacted him). Then I decided to start doing it and at the same time offered to interview him for my literary blog (something I've been doing for a while. See for example http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/2011/06/interview-with-monk-turner-creative-commons-musician/ , http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/2012/04/interview-with-michael-barrett-writer-and-movie-critic/ , http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/2020/07/interview-with-harvey-havel-novelist/ and https://archive.org/details/robert-flynn-tx-author-2007-interview I've actually been interviewing Mr. Reynolds for 11 months now -- all my interviews take a long time to do and the final product will also be very long. (I like to envision myself as a kind of literary Bill Moyers, a Texas journalist who conducts long in-depth interviews with subjects).

I have never talked to Clay Reynolds, and when we agreed to an interview by email, we agreed that both of us would own the rights to publish the interview separately without needing permission. No money has changed hands, though I will note that Mr. Reynolds has sent me review copies of two of his books (I have bought several others on my own). I will note that no parts of the unpublished interview have been used for the draft I made for Wikipedia.

It's true that Mr. Reynolds and I have discussed via email the possibility of publishing something later on, but even that possibility is not likely and far in the future.

It is true that I will probably make a disclosure about another non-Texas author after this Reynolds article is successfully submitted. I will be sure to do this after the Reynolds article is done with. But this is unrelated to the matter of Clay Reynolds. Also, I can say that none of my Texas-theme edits require any COI disclosure.

IN SUMMARY: You have suggested that I might be a connected contributor and have a COI about the subject. I have disclosed that I have received no compensation of any kind for contributing this article and that I have no personal connection other than the fact that (1)we have a common Facebook friend and 2)I'm working on an in-depth interview about the subject and have emailed him several times for the interview while writing the article.

One thing I know is that Mr. Reynolds has 100s -- if not 1000s -- of writers who studied under him over the last 3 decades. I know that after this page is approved, his ex-students and readers will probably make this article even better. My goal is simply to get it approved, so that this can happen.

The second point is a little more serious. You say that I am "unwilling to write it properly" and that the "first step is to remove all citations to what he says about himself" and all references to reviews, blurbs...."

I have gone to great effort to write in a way that conforms with Wiki policy and guidelines. I have cited an official Wiki policy about why it is okay to cite primary sources in certain cases and referred people to the John Updike article which does many of the same things. Also, wikipedia policy does not forbid the kinds of secondary sources you mention -- only that it be used carefully to fill in "noncontroversial details." I quote official wiki policy, "Non-independent sources should never be used to support claims of notability, but can with caution be used to fill in noncontroversial details." https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NIS&redirect=no

With regard to the descriptions of books, there is almost next to no "fluff" or press releases here, just a one sentence summary of each book and quotations from usually 2 reviews.

I am unsure what to do now. Do you want to approve it? Should I resubmit it?

If worse comes to worse, I could just remove the section EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION entirely and just leave everything else as is, but only if that's enough to be approved. But I have already explained my reasons why the EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION was probably fine as it stands now.

I hate to sound argumentative -- we are all volunteers here -- but I see the problem not that I am "unwilling to write it properly," but that the approvers are not applying Wikipedia policy properly in this case. I don't know why this has been happening. The policy on verifiability and the use of self-published sources explicitly and unambiguously allows the use of primary sources in certain cases, and the approvers should already know that. Yet they seem to think that primary sources are forbidden in all cases. That is simply not the case. Robert J Nagle (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Update 3: I have provided a COI statement on my User page (not as hard to do as I thought). Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If you do not want my advice, nothing compels you to come here. � DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought you were expecting me to respond to your remarks and would possibly be willing to reconsider your decision. I must have misunderstood. I have resubmitted the article again. Robert J Nagle (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick note

Hello dear. This article (Tamkeen Insurance Company) represents a real company with a legal presence, and also this company is the most prominent company in the State of Palestine, and it is the only company in the Levant region that deals with the Islamic system, and it also represents the first idea of ​​Islamic insurance in the Arab world .It also meets encyclopedic standards for companies and organizations. I hope the article is not deleted. Osps7 (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Osps7, it was deleted by another administrator for not indicating significance. That doesnot mean it might not be notable, but that the information provided did not indicate that it might possibly be important enough to be notable . That's because all the references come from a source which is in essence merely a directory of the industry. For notability of corporations, se [[W{:NCORP]]. Put briefly , you need substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices or directory information. The sources must actually discuss the company, and not be limited to its financing or its personnel changes. Furthermore, we do not consider interview with the company officials to be objective sources if the interviews consist mainly of the executives saying whatever they care to. If you think you have sources for this, start again in Draft space.

WP bases its judgments of notability not on intrinsic importance, but only on sources, I am not saying this always makes sense, but it is the way things work here. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)��

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Len Fulton

This is an interesting guy and publisher. I came across him working on Draft:Revolution and Other Essays. It seems strange to me that anyone wouldn't consider a book of Jack London essays and stories published by a major publishing house in 1910 notable, especially as this would seem the broader subject to cover the individual stories and essays, but I'm often surprised. Maybe you or one of your talk page stalkers are a Jack London fan and can help? His essays and stories promoting Socialism are pretty interesting even if they aren't his most celebrated work. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As for the essays, it is difficult to show a book of collected essays notable. It might be possible for London, but you need, as usual substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads . Itis also likely that its been discussed in one of the biographies of Jack London.

As for Fulton, What you need to do for Len Fulton is expand the part on his publications ,giving gfull publication information, and link to substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads

If he published these through his own firm, there will be a problem with notability unless there are very strong reviews from major sources, DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)