User talk:DGG

“ One person at a time, one article at a time ”

“ I am very gratified to have learned that so many people seem to like me, but even more gratified that they understand and like (or at least tolerate) the work I'm trying to do. ” —  at my RfA

Archives: Sept-Dec06, Jan-Feb07, Mar-Apr07, May07, Jun07, Jul 7, Aug07, Sep07, Oct 07; Nov 07, Dec07, Jan08, Feb08, Mar08, Apr08, May08, Jun08, Deletion reform , Journal talk , Speedy talk, IPC & Fiction talk, Notability talk, WP:Academic things & people talk,

(some still current material from these pages is below:) :

Please post messages at the bottom of the page - - - I will reply on this page, unless you ask otherwise

---

If your article is in danger of deletion, possibly some of the following messages may be of help to you:

• sorry, but I had to delete this article--we're an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. You have to become famous first, then someone will write an article about you. In the meantime, there's lots of things to do here -- so welcome.
• If you fix the article, I'd advise you to add this very quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion.
• An article must have 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases)
• You must release content from your web site under a GFDL license, which permits reuse and modification of the material by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and is not revokable.
• see our Business FAQ (a wonderful page written by Durova, from whom I learned a lot of my approach to people writing articles about their organizations))

---

Kings of Clonmel

I must say. Administrators are not making it easier to find information, the reason Wikipedia was created, but harder to. I hate self-loving, delete happy, idiotic adminastrators. No need to respond.

Wait a minute. Under copyright laws, if I give credit of the work to the original creator, like I did, it would be perfectly legal. Once again, no need to respond.

I'm keeping this one at the top. Tributes to my willingness to delete are always appreciated. Thanks. DGG (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Blood libel

Thanks for your note. I think mentioning his name violates WP:UNDUE, particularly as he himself has recanted his previous views. What do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

columns

Use

 
 {{Col-begin}}
 {{Col-1-of-2}}
 Column 1 here
 {{Col-2-of-2}}
 Column 2 here
 {{Col-end}}

Or

 {{Multicol}}
 This text appears in the first column.
 {{Multicol-break}}
 This text appears in the second column.
 {{Multicol-break}}
 This text appears in the third column.
 {{Multicol-end}}

The latter's obviously more flexible. Hope that helps, --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

SPARC

←I am a little confused by what happened to this page SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation you changed to a redirect yesterday --I see the speedy for the redirect but I did not notice the speedy or other deletion process for the original. In any case i want to recreate it as it is one of the things I know about & I'm sure i could do a proper article whatever may have been wrong with the first--If you're an admin could you restore it to my user space for the purpose? DGG 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The SPARC mess was confusing, I'll give you that. :) Someone — I don't know who — moved the SPARC article to the silly title SPARC - Scalable Processor ARChitecture, and created the new silly-titled page SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation. Someone else sensibly requested that SPARC - Scalable Processor ARChitecture be moved back to SPARC. I'm not actually an admin, so my contribution to the mess was limited to moving SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation to Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation, and proposing it for speedy deletion since its only content was a link to the organization's Web site. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Scholarly_Publishing_and_Academic_Resources_Corporation for the entire text of the page.) Since then, somebody else has speedy-deleted Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation (per my suggestion), and SPARC has been moved back to its rightful place.

If you would like to create an article about the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation, then Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation is the right place to do it. As long as you can find something encyclopedic to say about it, I wouldn't worry about the fact that a previous page on the topic has been deleted. --Quuxplusone 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (dp)

Contextual information

I have noticed that essays, e.g. WP:LISTCRUFT, are often cited in deletion debates, such as the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party of Great Britain debates. It might be worthwhile to jot down a concise essay on the value of contextual information, which one could cite so as not to repeat the contextual argument every time. One could argue that such an argument is a natural offspring of policies such as WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SENSE. Then one could post it as WP:CONTEXT. I am interested in your opinion about this. Stammer 09:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actual usage of the European Library by librarians?

Hello DGG. Please see my my question for you over on WP:COI/N, regarding the European Library. EdJohnston 21:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC). You asked me about it sometime back, and I've been noticing announcements that it is finally now becoming actually useful; union lists are not used until they have almost as much content as the national ones. It's like OSX, it was obviously going to be universal , but wise people didn't switch over for a while. I waited for 10.4. DGG 20:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Well done. Do well with the mop :) -- Samir 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Your RfA reached WP:100 and is palindromic to boot. :) Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow congrats DGG! 111 supports, that's fantastic - if you ever need anything just give me a shout and I'll try my best to help. Good luck... Majorly (hot!) 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I'm glad I was one of those 11 extra to push you over the top at Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something. You'll do a great job. Smee 11:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

Have a look at Talk:Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Before I start an AFD, do you think this is below the cut? ··coelacan 07:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be great; thanks. ··coelacan 00:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

AfDs/blogs

Hi, the assumption is that I'm "pro" the blogs I'm currently fighting to keep an entry for, but that is jumping to conclusions. I wrote many new entries on Muslims and Islam, and I would fight to keep them. They're there because I think it's important people have access to information about these issues. In any case, a pattern won't be seen since this user first did a "speedy delete" on several entries using an IP and only identified themselves when I argued that an anonymous user shouldn't be speedy deleteing (to point out that it's against wiki policy and an ip user shouldn't be discriminated). The reason I went out directly against him is because of his claim that he's being attacked for something he's only been doing for "two-three" days, and of course, looking at his "user contributions" that's what it looks like, so why accuse him? I am not accusing him that he's anti those blogs, I'm accusing him of abusing the system and I don't like it. As I wrote him directly, his only contributions are nitpicking those of others. I think that's anti-wikipedia behavior.

I think blogs are in a catch 22, since old style newspapers have no interest in writing about them, and at most they'll reach the editorial page. Most blogs are not worthy of an entry, but I just wonder how many entries are going to be deleted before the policy is changed.

About the Fjordman blogger, for example. When the original speedy delete came up I said that if you google, it comes up in amazing numbers. To which I was told by this user "it's a common name in Scandinavia". But then, why does the blogger get top billings on the first 3-4 pagse of Google (at which time I gave up looking). What do I need to do to prove that this guy is immensely popular? Misheu 06:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and input. I do need somebody with some common sense to tell me this :-) I'm not so anti what you say as you think. When I told this user that I actually appreciated his speedy delete since it caused me to look up sources he thought I was joking and took it as an insult. I wouldn't be so "up in arms" this time if it wouldn't be posed as "look up all sources now for all entries or else" and come as a 'second wave'. There are so many other ways to approach articles you think need sources. Again, some of the entries he brought for deletion, i agree with, but most of them he's going against established, well known, influential blogs. Misheu 06:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for your help in this recent mess. I appreciate the good words helping move this process forward. --Edwin Herdman 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Librarian stuff

Hi DGG, I recognize your username from around the wiki (recently at some Afds I'm watching). I see you're an admin and a librarian, and that you've contributed to similar discussions in the past, so I'd like to point out the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Unusual university spam. I think it's about time we developed a clear policy about this sort of thing. As an established wikipedian and wannabe librarian, I've taken a great interest in this debate. Thanks for considering it! Latr, Katr 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your thoughtful reply. There seems to be a lot of hostility and misunderstanding around this issue, so I hope we can reach a satisfactory conclusion. If I go for my MLIS, I'll do the UW's distance-learning program, since I don't really want to move to Seattle. It sounds like a lot of fun, but I have to do my research and determine if the extra money I would be making would be worth the extra debt I'd be taking on! Latr, Katr 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There is a similar thread that I moved just below the one in which you responded that you might want to check out. I'm taking everything related to that off my watchlist, as I seem to have unknowingly created some hostility between myself and one of the editors involved. If you would, please keep me posted if any new policies or guidelines are developed out of this. Thanks! Latr, Katr 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (dp)

sampling deletions

I've replied on my talk page. SamBC 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Printing

No, I think it was an honest mistake - my edit summary was meant to be taken literally, not as minatory (perhaps not the best phrasing). He is on the warpath again at Four Great Inventions of ancient China but I don't worry too much about that. There's absolutely no chance of me going for admin. Keep up the good work at AfD etc, & I'm still waiting for the Master of the Playing Cards expansion. Johnbod 03:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs etc as references

I am wondering about when blogs become useful as references. Some blogs are written by known figures who are notable already from their other writing, or from their qualifications or expertise. Some are associated with people who give their real names and professional positions and credentials. Some science blogs have been highly rated. For example, Nature magazine placed a "review of some of the best blogs written by working scientists" on its website in July 2006.[1][2].

Some examples:

• Pharyngula (weblog) by PZ Myers, a biologist from the University of Minnesota, science category winner in the 2006 Weblogs Awards
• Panda's Thumb (weblog), with many professional scientist posters, also highly rated (second place winner?). Almost every poster I have seen on there already has a WP article, and is noted for other writing already. Usually with good sources.
• talkorigins not a blog exactly, but with many articles written by well-known professional scientists and well-sourced
• RealClimate, a blog produced by "real climate scientists at the American Geophysical Union"
• Aetiology, found at [3], written by Tara C. Smith, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology in Iowa
• scienceblogs, a provider of science blogs includes many interesting and useful blogs [4]. Note that they are selective in who gets to blog, in fact.
• Nature itself hosts assorted science-related blogs [5]

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?--Filll 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

essentially, i think a review like that of Nature gives authority to the blog. The best way of establishing the authority is to write an article about the blog for Wikipedia. I think this is true in general for any type of sources which not everyone will recognize as notable without an explanation, and I have done so for a few reference sources, and have always intending to do more, including some blogs. Blogs run by magazines are like letters to the editor. Some places screen them very very carefully, some don't. (remembering again to distinguish from the letter to the editor type of short article, as in Nature). Something published in a blog by a recognized authority is an easy case--regardless of where she publishes it, she gives it authority. But remember to be fair about this--some blogs by those with whom we do not agree are also responsible.

so I encourage you to write some articles about blogs. Let me know & I'll look at them. DGG (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (dp)

An essay I've written

Hello. Though we are often on the opposite side of deletion debates, I thought you might want to read an essay I've written, found at User:Eyrian/IPC. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on its talk page. --Eyrian 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance proposal

Hi. Can I ask you to offer your thoughts on WP:RELEVANCE? It's a careful and ongoing attempt to cut a middle path on the subject of "trivia", among other things. Much obliged.--Father Goose 09:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

AfD notification proposal

Hi DGG. You do not need to change policy to have people notified about AfD. You might want to contact the developer of User:Android Mouse Bot 2 to see if s/he can create an Android Mouse Bot 3 to post the AfD notifications using stats from Wikipedia Page History Statistics. If you check out my contributions, you'll see that I am in the process of manually using Wikipedia Page History Statistics to add AfD warnings to those AfDs listed at the bottom of the August 13th AfD list. I also add {{Welcome!|-- [[User_talk:Jreferee|Jreferee]]}} to their talk page if they are new. I utilize Microsoft Word to assist me in all this. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that happens is the article itself sometimes is not tag for deletion even though the article is listed at AfD. See this, for example. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

DGG by David Shankbone

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your participation in recent AfDs involving lists, and given your track record for neutrality and diplomacy, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this conversation has moved to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines. I look forward to your continued input in order to reach a consensus on the issue! Sidatio 00:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello colleague

Hello there ! I was away sorry for the delay in responding. Thanx for the welcoming message and information, glad to find another "filing sufferer" around . I have been around a bit and is fully comprehensible (the wiki environment I mean) You see many incidents though. But I think I manage myself. Tell me something, how I make a nice signature ? I mean nice but keeping the level, not toons kind , just code it up or ? Let me know if I can be of assistance at any time, I have some acces to real antiques (books not people) See ya around Librarian2 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC) See WP:User. (but you need to know some elementary html markup). or tell me what you want to do--I'm not an expert, but I can do simple things. Incidentally, I am really a filing sufferer--I am the last certified instructor at Princeton for the filing rules in the old AACR1 card catalog. DGG (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! You are really a filing-sufferer. (even if I love that feeling of paper more than the screens) (for the first 5 minutes that is). About the signature, whatever makes me find my postings fast in a chain, any ideas ? (Yeah, ctrl-f right ?) Librarian2 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot you told me about the username similarity right? I have no problems with that but if you prefer I change it (I am the new one here I yield for the experienced elders) Just let me know how I do that Librarian2 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CSA Trust and "2 users"

The "two users" remark was in response to the entry by User:Steinbeck, who said, "If only two people in the world want to learn about either the village festival or the CSA Trust through looking at their Wikipedia article, the existence of these articles is justified." Obviously, I don't agree. Realkyhick 17:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello colleague

Do you feel like a Librarian today? If you do, give a look at WP:KIS and let me know if you have someone in mind who could have the time to code the most used labels (languages and most known projects). Also I have a problem with the box for the labels, I don't know what code to enter for the labels display horizontally inside the box instead of vertically. If you don't feel like a librarian today, that is fine also, we file it for another time ℒibrarian2 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The box problem is solved, I made instead a rail kind of thing where the labels go (makes you remember something?) I like it better anyway. But the need of someone as I said above is still actual ℒibrarian2 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Content policy analysis

Wikipedia:Relevance of content/Content policy analysis: let's try to synchronize our views on this subject so that our continuing work on it can be more effective.--Father Goose 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For you

[6] Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of all journals related to a subject--I'm on break. KP Botany 06:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's about 1% of the total and 10% of the ones in JCR. things could get a good deal worse. We normally do this as a separate list when possible , e.g. List of scientific journals in chemistry, or List of botany journals but we sometimes have included such a short section in a subject article. I do not think the number is excessive. The logical first step is to try to write articles for the journals. I will advise accordingly. DGG (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the first step is for the editors of the article to decide which journals and sources are the most important that should be named in the article. This user is only adding Elsevier and Springer links, to at least one article where the leading journal, unmentioned, is a Wiley publication. The logical first step is to delete the spam, explain again that this requires talk page discussion, and expect that this be done. KP Botany 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The journals that were added in the first instance were only about 20 titles in a number of fields, from a range of publishers including the leading scientific society in the subject, and not unreasonable. I advised the person adding them, reminding him he had to show notability for the journals, and how to go about it. I see he is continuing in a less useful manner and i will deal with it a little differently now. DGG (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one

[7] KP Botany 18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:TIMETRACE

Hello, I wonder if you could, while editing diverse articles, check if they have sources in their history or chronology (or when they mention any important date. If they don't, could you please place inline {{Timefact}} calls where those citations to sources are missing, this will display . If you find an article with too many inline calls to place or totally lacking needed history of the subject, you can instead place {{histrefm}} at the footnotes of the article's main page, just before Categories. If you could add this to your routines, it will most certainly help WP:TIMETRACE. Thank you for your help. Daoken 06:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fan fiction article

Hello, I recently returned from an editing hiatus of sorts, and decided to go back to work on some of the articles I had been working on previously. I was just looking through your profile and thought that you might like to contribute to the Fan fiction article, one of my prior favorite frustrations (heh) which could probably use someone of your experience and interests looking at it. I'm especially keen on seeing the early history of printed derivitive works improved, which seeing as it goes back to at least the 18th century, I thought sounded like it might be right up your alley. I also think we still have a bit of a dearth of academic references and mentions in modern times, despite the increasing interest in fan fiction in academic circles in recent years. You sound like you are a LOT better at digging this stuff up than I am, and the history really does seem to be rather interesting. Just thought I'd bring it up, in case you were interested. :) Any extra set of eyes looking at the article would be much appreciated! Runa27 21:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Compersion

I don't understand your rationale for removing the afd tag about this article, but would like to. The article itself is a full wiktionary entry with a usage note. Is your rationale that it should stay because there is discussion and that might lead to an article? Why wouldn't we keep the afd tag and let that emerge from the discussion? If the afd led to some non-dictionary content in the article, that would be OK with me. DCDuring 10:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your talk entry. That ought to do it. Afd has a too short a fuse for an off-the-beaten track article, I suppose. DCDuring 10:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Right--there are many attempts to try to find some intermediate or different way to get people to work intensively on articles. I support them as experiments, if they are not too dogmatic of bureaucratic about it, or want to add yet additional complicated rules or machinery; I can't think of a good way myself, but perhaps someone will be more ingenious. By the way, I removed a Prod not an AfD--See WP:Deletion policy for the difference. DGG (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Compersion

Compersion is a neologism. It appears to have been invented in the subculture of polyamory. They need to a better job of providing hooks to existing words (See meme for a clever coinage) for their own cause. In the same link cruise, I came across the terminology within polyamory page, which illustrates their concern for novel terminology, confirmed by visiting the external links. The article is a glossary. Doesn't the article name alone indicate a problem with WP:NOT a dictionary?

As to Compersion, my WP objection is not to the word, not to the concept, but to the mere dictionariness of the entry. There is a main entry, polyamory, that is a nurturing home for the concept. If compersion were a redirect to that page, it would be fine. Many smaller articles that don't represent potential forks to different articles from a user's point of view ought to be merged or converted to redirects to accelerate the user getting to a meaty article on the concept of interest, in context. I proposed the deletion (sloppily, trying to follow the instructions given in the prod template), because I was thinking in terms of deleting the text content, not so much the page itself. Maybe my goal could be viewed as a merge back into the polyandry article. But only deletion discussions seem to generate debate and significant editorial improvement for less attended-to articles. The source tags especially seem to be ignored. DCDuring 12:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an overlap between dictionaries and encyclopedia. Articles giving merely the definition and etymology of the word, and examples of usage, go in Wiktionary. Articles that discuss the usage--or the etymology--in a substantial way go here--such discussions are not generally allowed in Wiktionary--they consider that information encyclopedic. . Obviously there will be many articles that can be seen from either perspective. The way I look on it is that if the information seems readily capable of development from a subject perspective, then it probably belongs in WP, on the same principle as we have stubs. If it seems unlikely that a subject article could be written, then it doesnt. In this case, there seems to be potential for discussion the concept as well as the word formation. Thanks for the link--I find the invention of these words a very curious phenomenon. On the one hand, the concepts seem to be real--or at least they seem to match what some people perceive in their own feelings and for which there is no standard word. Personally, I dont like this word--I keep spelling it comperson, as a sort of portmanteau between compassion and person.

as for the subject, yes, i did think that might have been part of the reason, and in general I try to support the expansion, not condensation of articles of sexuality. In this case its not really part of polyandry, which is much more limited. The feeling of friendship and love between multiple wives is as much a part of it, for which there is an immense historical record. There's much less literature on the reciprocal, primate males being as they are. There's also of course other possibilities, such as the relationship between a bisexual person's gay and straight lovers. There might be place for a general article, but we'd need a word for it--and here we are back again. DGG (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence for your extraordinary contributions to the AfD process, whither the D be speedy or slow! Dreadstar † 06:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: welcome colleague

I'm taking a whole bunch of courses, no specialty yet:

• filosophy/theory of information science
• history of book and library
• statistics in the information sector
• technology for automated document information systems
• structure in document information systems
• retrieval in document information systems
• social aspects of information
• law and information
• management strategy in the information sector
• data processing in information
• present issues in publishing and booktrade

And I'm probably doing an internship transforming 18th/19th century etches into electronic form. For now, I'm pretty new to all of it. Still need to look around and try things out to see in what way I'll be helping the Librarians project though. Also depends on the area of information science that will get my preference in the future. Key to the city 09:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fallout from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum

As the current Emperor of the Inclusionists, would you be able to take a look at this can of worms and see if you can suggest a solution? I confess to being at a loss - I really don't want to nominate roughly 50% of an editors work for deletion, but even at my most inclusionist I can't really make a valid case not to do so. Can you think of any way we could at least save some of them? (My normal instinct would be to merge them, but I can't think of anything legitimate to merge them to; List of murder victims in New York City would be unmanageably large, to say the least.) Any thoughts? — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that... My gut feeling is to leave them until other people stumble across them and they're nominated one-by-one — a bulk nomination is likely to lead to a huge amount of arguing & bad faith — but I see real problems with any attempt to rewrite them. My gut instinct (assuming there's nothing to merge them to) is to cut them down to stub length (Wikipedia is not a true-crime magazine, and I see no reason at all for the precise details unless they're directly relevant to the case), but I've no doubt at all that that would spark a permanent revert war. There are 500+ murders in NYC alone every year, and I really can't see anything more noteworthy/notable about these than any others. (Sooner or later, someone's going to need to turn their attention to Billy again as well; he's still cut-and-pasting as fast as ever.) Ho hum. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Search LOVE in Google

Hi, DGG: Just for my edification, could you point out the assertion of notability contained in the Search LOVE in Google article. Thanks. --Evb-wiki 22:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I might perhaps have worded it better as the good faith willingness of the ed. to improve the article. He's got 5 days. Without the hangon, I probably would have deleted. DGG (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I can live with that. I thought I was missing something. Cheers. --Evb-wiki 00:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: UCfD

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#UCfD

There's absolutely no need to apologise, I assure you. It's simply that I'm almost certain that I've never posted to your talk page regarding UCFD (well, except now). Were you referring to someone else, perhaps? I initially assumed that it was in reference to me, but upon rereading your comment, I see that it's ambiguous on that point.

As for a means of increasing participation, I can't think of anything at the moment. UCFD is advertised about as much as any other deletion process. Participation there seems, for the most part, to fluctuate with the quantity of nominations: when many categories are nominated at the same time, raw participation increases. The quantity of nominations itself is quite variable: some days see a few dozen new nominations and other times numerous days pass with only a handful.

I don't think it's entirely feasible to combine most of the XfDs. The deletion/inclusion standards for categories, templates, project pages, and redirects are vastly different. If there is any move to consolidate them, I think it should be carried out in small steps, in order to allow the full consequences to be revealed.

To me, the most obvious target for consolidation is WP:STFD; since it deals both with templates and categories, its function could be split and allocated to WP:TFD and WP:CFD, respectively. I've also considered proposing combining WP:UCFD and WP:CFD (indeed, that's why I initially became active at UCFD in June), but I don't think that's viable at this point in time. Moreover, the standards for user categories are substantially different from those for regular categories. A 'year of birth' category for people would be kept at CFD but a similar user category was deleted at UCFD; an 'interest' or 'language' category for biographies would be deleted at CFD but those for users were kept at UCFD. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have finally figured out who made the comment I referred, and it was certainly not you! I'll fix my implication. As for UCFDs, I notify the people individually with a bot. If none of them mind, we're done with it. I doubt many people watchlist their user categories (but how should I know really, since I don't use them myself). another way to notify would be through relevant project pages, in instances where it applies. Personally, I think very highly of WP Projects as a way for effective work in such a large overall setting as WP, , and we should continue to develop their usefulness. the real problem with UCFD is that some people dont want them except for strictly encyclopedia-related issues, and I think that is fundamentally wrong in principle, and we need some kind of a referendum. I really have doubts about anything that might suggest paternalism or telling other people how to organise themselves, unless there is actual abuse. That happens, of course, and when it does it should be dealt with. DGG (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. The diff of your response was also quite informative and helps shed light on the pattern of your participation. In response to your comment above, I would like to make two points.

First, I agree that WikiProjects are effective for bringing together and coordinating the efforts of various editors; that's one of the reasons that I consider the Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject category tree to be useful, and am generally hesitant to delete (or suggest deletion of) any page that is used by a WikiProject.

Second, I would be surprised if people watchlisted every user category that they appeared in; it's more likely that they just watchlist the ones they have created. Still, I don't view paternalism to be an issue with user category discussions, since appearing in a user category rarely involves an actual, conscious decision. In virtually all cases, users appear in a category because they transclude or have substed a certain userbox. Their appearance in the category is coincidental and they may even be completely unaware of the accompanying category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

HarvardScience

Ok, I re-read the article, and didn't realize it was an official site. The wording made it sound like it was an unofficial one. But anyway, I found a source for notability (though it's not much) and added it in, though to be honest, there's little else about it online if you do a search for it (and rule out sites with harvard.edu in it). Kwsn (Ni!) 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you found something--now it can probably survive Afd. DGG (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure more sources will come out eventually, the site is pretty new. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

other schools may have similar. I think Berkeley does--I will take a look for it. DGG (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sylvin Rubinstein

Could you take a look again at Sylvin Rubinstein? Much, of not most, of it is directly from the webpage [8]. For example, the "Nazi Occupation" section - both of those sentences are directly lifted from the news article. In the "Resistance" section, the paragraphs/sentences that start "It turned out..." and "Werner arranged..." are directly lifted, and that's most of the section that isn't direct quotes from Rubinstein. And before Apeloverage's edit it was even worse. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in fact quite unhappy with this article, and said so on the article talk page. I have now looked further, and commented in some detail there based upon both the English and the German material. The author of the article is a well-establish and reliable editor who has worked on a number of different topics, primarily films. Had it been a newcomer, i would probably have deleted the article immediately. Perhaps he can fix it, based on your & my information. If not, i will stubbify it. DGG (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Kewl. Thanks for your attention and participation :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello badge

Hi. I made a Wiki Hello badge in case anyone's interested in using it for the Meetup. It's on the Meetup page. Nightscream 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Academic articles, what I think is important

In answer to a question from User:Dgandco about what constitutes the important requirements--as I personally see them

1. . Do not ever copy anything from a website, unless you fulfill the requirements of WP:COPYRIGHT. even then, it must be suitable.
2. . Read WP:BFAQ for information about conflict of interest and the necessary precautions.
3. . Read WP:PROFTEST from information about what counts as notability for faculty and researchers
4. . Remember the difference from an academic CV, which lists everything pertinent, and an encyclopedia article, which contains only information about the most important accomplishments.
   1. . List only major works: Books, the most important peer-reviewed journal articles, major awards, chairmanships, and so on.
   2. .Books are shown to be important by first, the nature of the publisher, and second, reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Include exact citations to such reviews, and third, being cited elsewhere.
   3. It is appropriate to list all the published books. Works in progress don't count for much.
   4. .Journal articles are shown important by fisrst, being published in excellent journals, and second, being widely cited. In the humanities, Scopus and Web of Science unfortunately dont work for citation counts--do the best you can with google Scholar.
   5. Overall number of peer reviewed articles is important, but do not actually list them all. Only the most highly cited or most recent or most significant. Usually, 5 is sufficient.
   6. Internal university committees are not usually of encyclopedic importance, nor is service as a reviewer. Editorships are. Positions as the head of major projects are.
   7. Teaching is only of encyclopedic importance if documented by major awards, notable students, or widely used textbooks .
   8. University administration below the Chair level is not usually important.
   9. Details of undergraduate work is not usually important, nor is any graduate work except the doctoral thesis research.
   10. work done independently after establishment as a full member of the profession in one's own right is what is important.
5. Remember the difference between public relations and an encyclopedia article
   1. Avoid adjectives of praise or importance
   2. Mention things once only.
   3. Mention the full name , & name of the university and department, only once or twice.
   4. Avoid needless words. Write concisely.
   5. Avoid non-descriptive jargon, and discussions of how important the overall subject is to society.
   6. Important public activities need to be documented by exact references to reliable 3rd party public sources/. don't use vague phrases about importance to the community and the like--list specific activities.
   7. .Do describe the research in specific terms, but briefly. Link to a few very specifically appropriate WP articles.
6. . follow WP style
   1. . Differentiate between External links, and references.
   2. . Link only the first appearance of a name of an institution or subject, but link all institutions and places
   3. . Give birthdate and place if possible
   4. . Use italics for book titles and journal titles, never bold face.

AND

• Be prepared to meet the common objection, "all professors publish. What are the third party sources saying this one is important" (dp) DGG (talk)

Has this account been compromised?

Evidence: You just agreed with me. This is unprecendented. Please relinquish control of this account to the real DGG immediately. Someguy1221 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

if you'll look at my deletion log, you'll see my dark side shows itself itself every day, generally when I start editing. After I get that expressed, I go on in the way you normally think of me. DGG (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only did he agree with me earlier today, he even voted 'Delete' on an AfD (admittedly on one of Billy's articles, but even so...). I agree this pattern of events is most peculiar and warrants a full investigation. — iridescent 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of deletions, I've been arguing for the validity of the concept in Xenofiction, but my characteristic bungling is hampering me. Could you give a hand? Thanks.

--Kizor 02:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you've been doing whatever can be done--except that if you can find a few more uses of the term, it would certainly help.. DGG (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but more of it needs to be done and the fact that IRL my insomnia is starting to verge on mental instability has made that kinda hard. There's now a question there addressed to you, btw. --Kizor 15:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I recovered. The article was deleted, but you can't have everything, can you? --Kizor (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

from the AfD " not part of the critical/descriptive vocabulary I'm aware of. It might be someday, but not now" -- so try in a few months. If it is really expanded and much better sourced, and meets the objections, it can be Boldly inserted--otherwise it needs to be put on a user page and requested at DRV. If you don't have a copy of the latest version, ask me to send you one. DGG (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Antarctica cooling controversy

Thanks for your opinion, I think your judgment was balanced and fair. By the way, I love your quote, which you invented by the results of the search I did. You can bet I am going to use it. Go ahead and make a userbox. It's really good. Mariordo 04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD's

Well I will definitely take it down a lot after this batch, it is a lot after all, and it is very hard to defend 100+ deletions at once :) And to try to discuss intelligently each one, well.... I agree more spaced out would be better. Judgesurreal777 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for understanding --for one thing, it looks like some of the combination articles may be heading for keep--and then it would make it easier to discuss the others. I agree that many of them dont look like they need much in the way of discussion--that's part of what i meant by "discuss intelligently". DGG (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My father's MBE

Thanks for your kind offer to do some research into my father, but I really think that that would be flogging a dead horse. He was made an MBE for acting as honorary treasurer to some local charities. He may have got a paragraph in the local press at the time but certainly nothing more. I think your time would be better spent continuing your excellent work in defending genuinely notable articles from some of our trigger-happy new page patrollers and admins.

My comment in the AfD wasn't meant to imply any lack of notability for Pat Haikin, but if want to look for sources you would probably do better to concentrate on the Hoxton Apprentice rather the MBE. That restaurant certainly got some media coverage when it opened and I'm sure it deserves an article of its own, but I don't know if Pat Haikin's involvement was enough to make her personally notable. Phil Bridger 11:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your comment on my rhetorical device--I apologize for using what may be seen as satyrical comment. I realize about MBEs, though it's probably best not to give a personal illustration. People have used that sort of argument otherwise--e.g. "I'm a professor, and I'm not worth an article." --some of them have been & for some articles have been written and gotten to stick. Looking more carefully, she was principal of what might be a major secondary school, which must be why she got the MBE--and such can in fact be notable--both I suppose for a MBE and sometimes for WP. I'm not really in a good location to do research on UK local history. I'll comment further at the AfD. DGG (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Lewis Rigg

Hello again, DGG ... you did some cleanup of my PROD on Dr. Lewis Rigg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where I had left the language from a copy&paste of the CSD template in the 3rd Step of my brand new Warn-fiction protocol ... I just felt that

Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:FICT notability criteria.

was a Little Too generic ... I fixed the other two PRODs that I did on the same day, and corrected the date/time on this prod to the original values before your cleanup ... yeah, My Bad, but in general, do you approve of my "kinder, gentler" approach to deletions? (i.e., PROD as an alternative to CSD?) ... BTW, this editor's track record for NN articles is none too good, and I helped zap a bunch of bios for soap opera actors from A Land Down Under, so now I'm going after the cruftier stubs of fictional characters, like Martin Bartlett, who hasn't even appeared on-camera yet ... Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

keep at it! for non-notable fictional characters, Prod is a great way to go, as CSD is isn't permitted and AFDing them all is an absurd amount of work for everyone. If they are popular enough, someone will fix them while they are on prod. It also permits re-creation if the character later becomes notable as the series progresses--prods are always undeleted if someone requests it. But you might also want to consider something even simpler: changing to a redirect, with an edit summary like "changed to a redirect to avoid deletion". i find people rarely argue that one, and if they do, there is still Afd. By all means feel free to improve & expand my wording whenever you can do so. I will be very glad for anything you can do to help us see an end to the disputes over these articles.DGG (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Computer Gaming World list of the best games of all time

How am I wrong? It's a copyright violation of the magazine's intellectual property. Corvus cornix_talk 17:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The list, in and of itself, is copyrighted. Corvus cornix_talk 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

and a/ can be reported on, just the the academy awards can be reported on. and b/ It's fair use, 1% of the total. It meets all 4 fair use test: factual prose, non-profit use, minute fraction oft he original, no influence on sales--since its free on the web. But lets not argue it privately--what vopyright discussion page do you think would be best? DGG (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

You participated in this AfD, so I thought you might be interested in the close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of planets in Futurama. Rather a surprising result I'd say. Though a fair few of the Keeps were somewhat dubious and unsigned. RMHED (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, combination articles like this would seem the rational way to go. And the close was, counting the bold ones only, , at a rough count 28 to 8. That would seem a good case for deletion review-- I think it would be better if someone other than me brought it. I see you did not participate in this one. But I think you do not accept my argument that combination articles are the reasonable compromise, so i respect your fairness in this note. DGG (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology

You've put a lot of work into figuring this site's issues out. Please feel free to chip in at this discussion:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam?

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Wow, much obliged.[9] Durova^Charge! 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Randell Mills and Plagiarism

Incidentally, Mike, you'll need to find a better source for the plagiarism accusation. Not that i disbelieve it necessarily, but it still needs a real source. DGG (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing Bob Park is not sufficient? The accusation itself is quoted in the controversy section of the article. Note that matters of belief don't enter here - despite Stolper's original research, which I distrust. All we can do is to note that the accusation was made, which we have done. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

a person's web page is not a source for accusations about another person, direct or indirect, per WP:BLP. A wise policy, IMO, since they are self-published sources, and one can put anything there. If Park actually published it somewhere, in a third party RS, then that could be used. DGG (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

other sources

DGG, It might be useful to mention in the discussion which are the reliable big US biographical dictionaries, that can be used as better sources - no doubt you know. Johnbod (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two. The older one is Dictionary of American Biography 1928-1937, and supplements through 1985. Most college libraries and large public libraries will have it in print, locations at. [10]--not all libraries will have all the supplements. I do not know if it is online.

the newer one, greatly preferred if available, is American National Biography Oxford Univ press, Print and online. Print in about 1800 libraries--essentially every college library and many large public--a listing can be found at [11]. (if you enter your zip code it will show nearby libraries) Online in at least 200 libraries and library systems--partial listing at [12]. They have a personal subscription at $25/month.

They each have about 20,000 entries, but not all the older ones were carried over into the new edition. Obviously, the new one is the more accurate for the ones it covers, and will have an up to date bibliography, listing both primary sources and selected secondary sources. I would regard anyone with a full article in each as unquestionably notable. My impression is that it is less scholarly that ODNB, but full up to the demands of WP.

there is a convenient free online bio of the day at [13]. Todays listing is Fiorello H. La Guardia. There is also, free availability to the biographies in every monthly update during the current month, at [14] The lastest is october 2007, and contains 43 articles--most but not all are in WP, but some are without good references. Between them, that's 800 articles a year available free. This would be a convenient way to help build the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LCC

The LCC subpages have been imported into Wikisource, where they can be expanded without the restraints of Wikipedia. I have asked for comment regarding the sub-pages at Talk:Library of Congress Classification#sub_pages. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:DonnPulley

Thanks for the response. Don't blame Keeper for coming across wrong. As the two involved eitors, I asked him to respond, since I know I come across a little harsh to newbies. If anything I think h was erring on the side trying to explain as many other reasons than non-notability. Interesting idea about looking in non-digital resources. I wonder though what the odds are of there being much material specific to this individual's life. Do we have an article on Bill Clinton's primary photographer? and that was in a modern era when the press plays a larger role in reporting on itself. I see the argument of the "first photographer" as interesting, but that was 50 years ago, there have been NO published stories with him as the primary subject. I'm not notable in any manner and even I can dig up at least one regional newspaper story about myself. Mbisanz (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

all we need is about his career, not his personal life. As for the sort of material there might be, see [15] and [16] and [17] And there are thousands of books on FDR & Truman. I wish I had time for this one. Looking at non digital resources is basic to adequate work for anything except studies on the internet itself, though I have to remind even myself frequently. :) DGG (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your post there DGG, I've added an addendum to my comments from yesterday. Your sentiments are heard loud and clear, I appreciate your input into the matter. I also wish I had the time and resources to save this one (even though I've leaned towards deletionism lately) and as such, have (obviously) opined towards deletion of this one as well. Really, the main problem is sourcing, (and BLP sourcing at that) but there is quite evidently a strong, admitted COI issue, which makes a POV issue, which makes an OWN issue, but you know all that. Reliable, verifiable sources would fix all that and I wish I could find some. As it stands, because of the imminent problems that would arise if it was in fact kept as is, with a "needs sources tag" (and we both know the backlog there), I think it should go redlinked into that good night... Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for your second opinion on what I wrote. Much appreciated. Keeper | 76 17:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

She claims to have sources, since we can't suspend the AfD, can I just withdraw it without prejudice to refile? Mbisanz (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you can, and it would be much appreciated. Just say so at the AfD. There is always the possibility of refiling-but it is considerate to wait about a month, better two. In the meantime i will also help edit the article to make it look like less of a memorial. the problem with COI is that even the articles about notable people generally say either too much, too little, or the wrong things altogether--the problems are real, and they must be fixed. I agree with you about this. DGG (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevance Question

Since you've said your a librarian, and from your user page I gather you work for a university or public library, could you take a look at this diff and make sure I'm presenting this academic-related issue in a relevant and even manner [18] ? I tried very hard on this one to source every assertion and be evenhanded to both sides. Mbisanz (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My motivations

Thanks for your note. I'd like to explain my motivation here, which I think has been misunderstood due to my admittedly high level of persistence -- there's been a lot of rhetoric directed at me that I think is wholly off base ([19] [20] [21] [22]). My interest in this was sparked when I found little coverage of these topics outside the movement itself, which led to the "independent sources" question.

My persistence is partly caused by my frustration with the discussion: most of the comments advocating "keep" seem to me to misunderstand the issue (yours excluded, as I'll get to). The central question, as I see it, is whether the fact that a religion is notable automatically means that its deities are notable. One aspect of this question is whether publishing houses associated with the religion are sufficiently "independent" for WP:N purposes to establish notability. I see that as an open question of Wikipedia policy, and few people in these talks have addressed it. You did respond to it, and I appreciate your having taken my position seriously enough to reply. I disagree with your response, because I have a harsher understanding of the policy behind WP:N: I think that if a subject is notable, it would have been written about in sources completely independent of the subject (as most of the Catholic saints have been). But I feel that the ability to discuss interpretations of WP:N at that particular AfD has been shut down by off-topic speeches and accusatory rhetoric.

So please, don't interpret my persistence as a view about the validity of minority religions. I think they are interesting and should be explained on Wikipedia. My concern is about policy interpretation. Fireplace (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Since you seem to like my attention to Ken Wilber, I see this question as analogous to the question of whether the notability of Ken Wilber establishes the notability of Ken Wilber's jargon, like AQAL, which was turned into a redirect for similar reasons. Fireplace (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have written if I did not take your work seriously--and I am aware of some of the absurdity in the defenses of those articles. I understand you want the topics to be covered appropriately. Where we disagree is what that entails; I think a religion being notable does mean its deities (and quasi-deities) are notable, in reasonable proportion to their significance. I'm not sure how far to carry it. Every canonized RC saint is I think notable, as well as those traditionally honored. Every Sufi saint would therefore be notable, and every Hindu or Buddhist incarnation if there is literature discussing them enough to write an article and people here to do it. For smaller religions, there might be some limit needed if there were a great many figures involved, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. In general, whomever the believers think most important are important.

I certainly do accept in-religion sources for articles on the religion--if there are outside views, so much the better. As you want to discuss it further, fine--I consider the RS noticeboard a good way of handling these questions. To my knowledge, only a few Catholic saints and other holy figures have much non-Catholic commentary, because nobody else bothers--except anti-Catholics with their own POV. It will be interesting to actually look on this one. However, I am surprised people can't find our Theosophist deities discussed in books about or attacking Theosophism, or at least other tertiary sources. But I personally haven't looked. There is consistency in my attitude here, for I also am rather broad-minded about sources for articles on fiction--and i think the consensus attitude is loosening generally about primary sources.

Anyway, especially on topics such as these, I think it very wise to compromise if possible, and I think there are a small enough number of articles to accept. I think you might want to consider that. There are worse problems here.

As for Wilbur, I see less need to compromise--this is more objective. the degree to which someone's academic or pseudo-academic jargon is worth considering depends on the academic consensus. You may want to see my comments on the various Generations pages, or ex-pages. DGG (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

fringe theories noticeboard

Hello, and thanks for your on-the-mark comment at the fringe theories noticeboard. I don't know if you intended to only date and not sign your comment, but as it showed up, your signature did not appear.

Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, in case you haven't seen it yet, there is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great White Brotherhood, also resulting from the same noticeboard discussion "Gardens of woo".

There is an additional section also, at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Golden Dawn where it appears some more religion articles may soon be targeted.

I'm not a follower of any of those beliefs and am not an editor of those articles (though I might do a few edits incidential to these AfDs). But I feel concerned about the use of the fringe theories noticeboard to patrol religion and philosophy articles. WP:FRINGE seems intended for science, history, politics, etc,... not religion, unless religion gets into a science article or something like that. I have also been surprised and disappointed to see derogatory words like "woo" used on that noticeboard to describe the religious beliefs of others and the work of well-intentioned editors. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

when I accidentally leave off my sig, its because I get enthusiastic and type 5 ~ marks instead of 4. If you see it, feel free to just add the DGG. I agree with you on the language used; it's an a priori sign of prejudice. FRINGE doesn't apply to religion, but to a certain extent proportionate weight does--the number and extent of articles does depend on the importance in terms of available literature and world-wide cultural knowledge. How to deal objectively with appropriateness content is a weak point in WP. I'm keeping in touch with the discussion there. DGG (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

being careful with prods

DGG, just a word to say hi, and let you know that I'm not being cavalier with these prod tags, in my estimation. We simply have differing opinions about the notability of some of these figures and this process is working as it should. Let me know if you feel differently. Cheers! --Lockley (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed feel differently and i have indeed told you why on your talk page. I don't challenge this way when I just disagree on the notability. I point out there that you have also been not notifying the authors of articles, and giving unhelpfully nonspecific deletion rationales. DGG (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation counts

I noticed your recent post on SA's talk page. How does one do a citation count? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideally you have access to Web of Science, the standard source covering the natural sciences and "hard" social sciences. Then you search for the author using the author finder feature, display the articles, sort by citations. Ignore any by other people that got left in there. Gets citations from the major English language Euroamerican journals. Scopus is an alternative, if the record doesnt go back before 1996; it's also more complete for social science in European journals. Google Scholar is tricky, you can't just use their numbers, you have to actually look yourself at each one to see what citations listed are from regular journals, because it includes a lot of other material. It is weak before 2000, & doesnt include everything. But it's the only available source for humanities, or where books are involved. In physics you can use arXiv, in computer science Citebase, in economics RePEc, in Biomedicine PubMed, but they are all incomplete. The number you get there will be a minimum. Use the free ones if you dont have WoS or Scopus, though--much better than nothing--if it's critical to notability I'll run it for you in WoS. And feel free to ask for more help if its anything tricky. DGG (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Baumgardner

Yeah, it was one of the more peculiar cases I've come across. What I wanted to know is if community consensus would be that a scientist could be notable expressly because he is a creationist. I don't think that Baumgardner would have been notable had he not been a creationist, but it seems that the community thinks that having an odd-ball opinion (even if it is only obliquely referenced) is enough to confer notability on a subject. Interesting! ScienceApologist (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

thinking further about it, the fact that those very respectable journals take his papers implies something more--peer-reviewing in most subjects like geology is usually blind, not double blind--the reviewers would have been aware of whom he is, and they would be expected to hold the general opinion of essentialy all scientists about creationist geology. It's not like some of the aberrant physics and cold fusion people, whose papers are published by journals that have a habit of publishing really dubious papers. All of his are in mainstream journals of high quality. As I said at the AfD, I think he'd rank as an associate professor, which is borderline. If he hadn't had a conversion & diverted his energies with nonsense, he would probably have done yet better. Much more commonly seen are people from a fundamentalist religious background who nonetheless become scientists and do good work--this to me is much more understandable. DGG (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Daniel Malakov

Relying primarily on scanty delete opinions posted by User:DGG, User:Coredesat acting as a proxy for User:DGG has, I have concluded, improperly deleted Daniel Malakov, stating that he or she was (in doing so) disregarding multiple Keep arguments by the same editor. I am that editor. No attempt was made to conceal the authorship of my arguments to keep, as every one of my arguments in response to other comments posted on the discussion, i.e., subsequent to my first remarks there, was enclosed in parentheses as (Keep) and properly signed.< It seems to me that prima facie, User:DGG acting through the hatchet wielded by User:Coredesat is violating Wikipedia policy: Deletion should not occur on the basis of a popularity contest.
Further, I was not the only one who argued for Keep.
The merits of the argument were never considered. The quantity of Wikipedia pages deleted by User:DGG and User:Coredesat in a short time (see deletion logs under entries for both Administrators) makes clear that neither could not possibly have evaluated deletes on merits. If this is what Wikipedia administrators mean by consensus, they are simply wrong and Wikipedia is nothing more than an amateurish tabloid (the one word Adminstrators eschew above all others) version of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Further, the basis for deletion was notability, a criterion on which there is no objective guideline. I point out, and it must be said, that many Administrators self-identify as fresh out of school with limited life experience, other than experience on Wikipedia. This does not bode well for the future of Wikipedia as a genuine resource rather than merely an internet phenomenon.
Adminstrators such as User:DGG may enjoy their skill at the Wikipedia consensus process, but aren't they really little more than bullies without portfolio? Trygvielie (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you think I'm young enough to be fresh out of school. Nobody has said that for decades. If my colleague acted as my proxy, that would be about the first time; when he closes AfDs in which I participate, it tends to be opposite to my opinion. I delete about 5 to 10 very obvious speedies a day as I happen to come across them them--especially if they look like attack pages; my log shows the timing. But it's great to be called a deletionist--it will help maintain some balance, considering what most people think--especially on articles about crimes, which I often support, even as a small minority. As i said at the AfD, if there's additional sources over time, and you can write a balanced article, try it -- on your talk page. But perhaps someone else might do better at keeping it in proportion. DGG (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked now due to his username, but if he comes back under a new name, I'll instruct him to go to DRV. Thanks. --Coredesat 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User talk:Ceoil

Hi DGG, What do you think of this block. There is a considerable irony in being blocked for incivility to betacommand! All the best for the holidays. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - great to see the system working! Hoping to see the Master of the Playing Cards development in 2008! I don't forget. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I just realised I forgot to thank you for your level head and balance during this. I took on board what you said, and I appreciated that you took the time. Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

publications, literature, documents, etc.

Hi DGG, In voyaging outside of the academic domains I've had a bit of frustration dealing with the numerous overlapping categories relating to various methods of publication. I was thinking of a potential category tree to try to rein in some of the chaos, and thought I would float it by you (another librarian with a particular interest in publications) to see what you thought. My thinking is (will be in a few minutes) at Category talk:Publications. If there are discussions or projects you're aware of that are looking at this topic, please let me know -- I've looked but haven't found any. --Lquilter (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

BC Comments

I've been following the debate on AN about the whole blocking of an experienced user over a bot threat. I noticed you and Sandy have both suggested either re-assigning BCB from BC or creating a more process-oriented way of dealing with bot reports. I'm not knowledgeable enough to get involved, but several months ago I did have a similar convo with BC and the response was that he was not releasing his code that runs BCB, so as long as the knowledge of the methodology of his Bot remains opaque, I don't see how it could be re-assigned or how other users could go about counseling people. Mbisanz (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there nobody at WP capable of writing a replacement? Then we can retire this one. DGG (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Persoanlly, I have no idea how to write a bot, but we have enough experienced users that we could probably put in a request to Wikipedia:Bot requests. I like the idea of moving the NFCC process server side or making it a transparent bot, but that would need to be made at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard and I'm fairly certain an admin or a member of the BAG would be the only person who could command respect in that kind of process. Mbisanz (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, with respect to bots, someone more knowledegable than myself. But don't start thinking being an admin gets you any particular respect around here. :) All it seem to do for me is generate long user talk pages. :):) But let's see who notices. Meanwhile, I'm thinking about to whom I should make the suggestion. DGG (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Always Do Well To Stop A Citizen's Arrest?

Hey, I absolutely refuse to edit articles. I've left that duty to my betters. Why don't you try to fix the problems that hamper good reading out of Wikipedia? I come here often to learn something new. I don't like being jerked around by anybody, whether those guilty of breaking all the rules, or you who wants to ignore it and shove a boot up my ass for complaining! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

Complain here if you like, I am quite used to it, but dont make personal attacks. You may even be right on the matter at issue, but the way you are discussing it at the article will not help. DGG (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, you were extremely concise and better at it than I. Perhaps I wont even do the objections anymore. I am not so gifted in terse tact. I do though, mean to protect other editors by exposing the meanspirited nature of these malcontents as to the welfare of the article. One is trying to shift the focus onto me, as though I am Korismo/ICarrier. I did read most of his posts, but he's actually a newcomer to the article and I am not. I will not explain myself further, just know that a checkuser is useless. Go ahead anyways and break these twinks' hearts. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In view of some edits you just made there, I thought it necessary to semi-protect the talk page.Personally,I'm not going to deal with the category question till after the holiday. DGG (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Request you look at User:Abd/AfD: formula for conflict

I've written an essay on the AfD problem in an attempt to delineate the issues and possibly to address them. I'd very much appreciate any comment you have time to give. Others who notice this are also welcome to comment and/or edit the essay. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN post about you

Sorry on behalf of all involved for not notifying you, that was a terrible oversight on all of our parts. If it helps, the conversation, as you likely read, focused not on you but rather on Zscout's block of the editor(vandal?) who complained about you. Good luck with your vandals...--CastAStone/^/(talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this [23] as I was out of town and off line. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Context is everything

Hi. No problem with the warning and stuff, I realise it's a part of the job. The SandyGeorgia thing had been in my past (pre-Admin even) but the circumstances were a little fraught at the time. Ceoil is annoying me a bit at the mo with his "how dare you unblock" if only because I unblocked him less than a week ago - I don't demand gratitude, but... Anyhow, the good admins sail their own course by whatever they believe is for the best for the encyclopedia. Always act for the right reasons and consensus follows. Mostly. :~) Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot... I didn't write legal memo's - I used to instruct solicitors, barristers, QC's... and, no, I don't believe I ever said "fuck" outside of quotation marks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If I misunderstood, I apologize; I did not trace the matter all the way back. But the immediate matter seemed clear to me, and still does. But that's why I would not act without support. I am not among those who want to sail my own course in taking administrative actions. I hope that even with more experience, i will retain the same attitude towards using them. DGG (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

adding verification

Hi there

I hope I have put this in the right place - feel free to delete if not!! Can you let me know if the verification I am adding is the type people are likely to be expecting? Thanks!Lynn Huggins - Cooper (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha

Ever been accused of being a deletionist before?--Kubigula (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See [24]. And once or twice before. Makes my day each time, as the saying goes. DGG (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hive mentality"? That's a good one. I'll have to remember that. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That is priceless. Both the accusation and the phrase. You must be doing something right, David. Thanks Kubigula, that made my day also. — Becksguy (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

List of 100 greatest hockey players by The Hockey News

Isn't the mere fact that the list says that it was copied from a copyrighted source an indisputable indication of a copyvio? If not, my apologies for using the speedy tag innapropriately.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 13:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The list is taken from a newspaper feature article (and since then, published as a book), but it is the articles about each player that would be the most contentious material, and none of that is included in this article. The list itself is basically just the table of contents, and I think that constitutes fair use. If not, we should include at least the top 10, and include an analysis of the full list (e.g. # of players by country, # of players by position, etc.). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

First, as for item one, no. Obviously the person using it thought it was fair use. It doesnt even proved it was actually copied, rather than merely based on. For that matter, there have been times when someone inserting material thought it was under copyright, and it has turned out not to be at all, as when, people have uploaded material from a copyright source (but for which they had fair use) but had been copied by that source from a government source--not that this applies here).

Twas Now is mostly correct--the 4 tests for fair use in the US are purpose of use, nature of material, amount taken, and commercial effect. (it need only meet them overall, not necessarily all 4 ). And this does meet all four: its for non-profit education purposes, is descriptive prose rather than fiction, is a small element of the original, and would have no imaginable effect on sales. But it has been held that if it did not meet fair use requirements, taking only say the top 90% of a list would not necessarily make it usable-- but I think ii would if we reported just the top tenth. But the entire list is fair use. 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Molecular biology ---> library

Hi DGG,

I've been aware of your presence on Wikipedia for some time, but I just now took the time to read your userpage. I find it remarkable that you transitioned from being a molecular biologist to being a librarian. Have you already documented this change of heart somewhere on-wiki? If not, do you think you could? (Even in talkspace, of course.) This doesn't really merit a reply unless you have free time, but I would love to know more.

Thanks, Antelan ^talk 07:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Just send me an email or enable yours. DGG (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your upcoming presentation to fellow librarians

Please keep us updated on this. And, if there's a digital component, you can place a copy online at meta:Presentations/en. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See User:DGG/LG. This is of course just a sketch. When I gave it, and as I will give it, there's no formal online component--it's a live demo based on the current pages in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Amateur computer club invite

Here is where I read about it. Maybe Mark remembers more. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation question

DGG, I'm looking to create a new article that I found some references for at the library. I have all the info needed for the source, but I'm not sure how to cite the author/editor. It's a "local history" book that appears to be a compilation of different chapters, which each chapter having (a) different author(s). I'm only using information from one specific chapter. Do I cite the author of that chapter, or the editor of the book? I feel like I should do both. The editor's name is on the cover of the book, and each author is only listed on their respective chapter(s). I couldn't find this addressed at WP:CITE or WP:CIT. Maybe Harvard Referencing has some way that I didn't see. Thoughts? Jauerback (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Use the 2nd form under CIT encyclopedia. The logic of CIT is that you when you use "citation" instead of "cite book" etc., you can combine any elements you need from the various versions; the fullest list is at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles

{{Citation
  | last1 = Kramer
  | first1 = Martin
  | last2 = Ludwig
  | first2 = Peter
  | author-link = Martin Kramer
  | contribution = Chapter on XYZ
  | editor1-last = Boyd
  | editor1-first = Kelley
  | editor2-last = Jones
  | editor2-first = Peter
  | title = Collected essays on the subject of ABC
  | volume = 1
  | pages = 719–729
  | publisher = Fitzroy Dearborn
  | place = London
  | year = 2009
  | isbn = 0-9999-1850-8
  | url =  http://www.book.htm
  | contribution-url = http://www.book#chapter.html   
  | accessdate = 2009-06-29  )
}}
 

which should come out as
Kramer, Martin; Ludwig, Peter (2009), "Chapter on XYZ", in Boyd, Kelley; Jones, Peter (eds.), Collected essays on the subject of ABC, vol. 1, London: Fitzroy Dearborn, pp. 719–729, ISBN 0-9999-1850-8, retrieved 2009-06-29
using url and contribution-url only if it's online. If there is more than one author, use the last1 first1 technique from citation for conferences for them. I included the code for multiple authors and editors if needed; I think I will add this to the CIT page. DGG (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

question

After waiting a while, I just would like to ask you, wether you have seen my question there. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

commented there. DGG (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: question

I don't think it's a bad idea - although I'm sure it'll be gamed by people seeking to exercise superiority over other admins. As with all things, the ethos in question applies only with a good dash of reason; I sure wouldn't want people overturning BLP or OTRS deletions on me without consulting me first. :-) east.718 at 21:08, January 22, 2008

I think a cat might be a good idea, to complement "administrators willing to make difficult blocks" and all the others - but can't think of anything succint enough at the moment. "Administrators willing to be reverted" sends the wrong message to me - got any ideas? east.718 at 19:48, January 23, 2008

I just saw "This admin encourages other admins to be bold in reverting his admin actions." at User_talk:BovlbDGG (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cal Nichols, & Barnes Reports

I removed the reports because I could find no mention or quote in any independent news organization or other website other than self-added directories--no membership in related associations, identification of authors, presentations or papers, networking--for 100+ reports that are sold via payloadz. Is this a distributor or some sort of a compiler? Flowanda | Talk 06:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They are I think a well-established market research organization,--but in any I may remember wrong, and will check on both parts of it tomorrow. DGG (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadou Cisse (student)

As far as murders go, Cisse was more notable than average. But the deleted article cited a full-length article in the New York Times—for a Chicago murder. I doubt this new source would convince any who favored deletition.

Moreover, I'm also a bit of a deletionist myself, and I primarily created the page because of apparent user demand for it. I would support a DRV though. Cool Hand Luke 23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall do as I usually do, wait for someone else to open it and then support overturn & relist. I don't like feeling isolated more than the inevitable. Your comments in the AfD already made clear that you had a neutral attitude, just as I would have expected. DGG (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the urgency in deleting non-BLP, non-promotional articles which are on the cusp of notability. The event is certainly noteworthy enough to get coverage somewhere on Wikipedia; deleting it and saying "no merge target exists" is a recipe for wasted efforts that clashes with my eventualist outlook. If I revive it, I'll let you know. Cool Hand Luke 23:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good people of all tendencies can usually agree on practical action and the merits of compromise positions. DGG (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your compliments on my posts at expert withdrawal! They are very much appreciated! LinaMishima (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jacen Solo

Partially as a result of your vote to keep the article, the AfD resulted in "no consensus". Since you are convinced that Wikipedia should have an article on Jacen Solo, please stand by that and help get this article to the bare minimum encyclopedic standards. This includes a complete rewrite from a non-in-universe perspective, accompanied by reliable, third-party secondary sources.

If however the article has not been brought up to this bare minimum within the next 4 weeks, I will consider resubmitting it for deletion.

Regards, User:Dorftrottel 02:41, January 30, 2008

thanks for the warning. My guess in that in 4 weeks the consensus will recognize that this sort of article is acceptable,with notability as part of the notability for the series. Not that it shouldn't be improved, by those who are interested in the subject. I see that the next-to-last so called !vote at the Afd was a delete by an anon who said "he doesn't actually exist. Therefore, all traces must be erased from Wikipedia, before we run out of space." No closer is going to listen to that sort of argument. DGG (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said

		The Wiki Wiffle Bat
		For the most clear-headed statement I've read on Wikipedia in a long time, I award you a wifflebat in thanks. Nealparr (talk to me) 06:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding [25], well said. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Silent Generation

Hey there, just giving you a heads up, I reverted your last edit on Silent Generation, because, as you will see, I was sourcing it at that moment (as well as some expansion). As far as all those lists of names go, though, not sure what to do about those. I think it important to have them there, but not sure how to source them...if you clink on the links, you see that they are from that era. Not sure if all are notable enough, though. If you have any thoughts, I'd appreciate it. Cheers,Cbradshaw (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, I just saw your comment on the List of Generations page, so I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your comments, esp, re: List of celebs. Incidentally, I didn't add the names, only tried to give them cultural context. As I said above, I am not familiar with all the names. Actually, now that I have researched the topic a bit more, I think the list is even more important, as they are "stars" of a generally quiet generation. When your talking in such a broad topic as a Generation, I don't know how a person can strictly fulfill every characteristic ascribed to it. Look forward to hearing from you. Cbradshaw (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There has long been consensus on the various pages for the S&H generations, that there is no basis for putting these people into the generational categories there because it is not a specific characteristic to be born in a particular 20 year period, and that if he mentions them in his book this is not sufficient, since that would be excessively detailed content. In fact, the pages for generations given only in his book were deleted, by consensus at AfD and elsewhere.

In contrast, if you intend to put them in as characteristic of the generation in its more general applicability, you will have to show that they have been generally considered characteristic of the generation specifically in reliable sources, other than his book, which is considered not to be generally accepted by historians. I call to your attention that blogs and the like are not acceptable sources for this either. There would still be no basis for such a list-0-they should be mentioned in the text, individually sourced for each characteristic person. DGG (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Msg for you on WP:FLAG-PROF talk page

Hello again, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... please see [[User_talk:The_Bipolar_Anon-IP_Gnome/Flag-prof#example_of_using_FLAG-BIO_..._message_for_User:DGG|this message I left for you]] on another talk page regarding my [[User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Flag-bio|WP:FLAG-BIO]] protocol, as well as [[User_talk:The_Bipolar_Anon-IP_Gnome/Flag-prof#difficulties|my replies to your comments]] ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)}

Winifred Freedman

Hello again, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... what do you think of my [[User talk:72.75.72.63/Oldprodfull|Template:Oldprodfull]]? I've dummied an example on [[Talk:Winifred Freedman|the talk page]] for that article ... I still need to write something to go in [[Template:Flag-templates|WP:Flag-templates]] and the others that reflects the new "inclusionists welcomed!" paradigm shift. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk) _{17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)}

I like it--it provides useful information not in the standard prod template and doesnt duplicate the instructions on what to do with the article. But why call it oldprod ? it doesnt become an old prod until after the 5 days--isnt the notice intended to be used when the prod is placed?DGG (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the 3rd Step of WP:FLAG-BIO to include adding and updating the {{Oldprodfull}} template on the article's talk page if you decide to PROD, 2nd a PROD, or decline a PROD ... see Talk:Winifred Freedman for an example.

Yeah, I guess Oldprodfull might be misleading for the name, but the functionality is for the "full" range of options (PROD and/or PROD-2 and/or DECLINE) ... besides, I simply cloned Oldafdfull and was Just Too Lazy to think of another name at the time. :-)

As designed, you can either stick it on a talk page with no arguments, or else use the "empty" boilerplate on the Template Usage page to get the ball rolling. — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{02:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}

User:DGG/LG

In December I gave a presentation to librarians in Pittsburgh area. Would you like me to send you my presentation slides? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

After a day of fighting with my email and then Wikimedia, I finally gave up and uploaded a file to rapidshare. At least it works :) Download. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Thanks. As I've said it wasn't the first removal that's the problem, it's the ongoing attitude after I try and discuss it with him. For example look at Oliver Hazard Perry Morton, nobody could possibly say that isn't a tremendous addition to the article. Links to university held document archives aren't really spam in any sense of the word providing the link is relevant to the article, they aren't promoting anything and don't fail any part of WP:EL from what I can see. The Indiana archive only has a small set of archives from what I can see, so it's not like there would ever have been hundreds of links. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)_

Last Judgement

DGG, What on earth is the point of this stub - with rubbish removed and renamed it is now just one line? I wish you would let some of these efforts go quietly. It does NOT help the encyclopedia to have them cluttering the place up. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is probably literature on that specific item.

From Grove Online, it turns out that it is his only signed work, the one on the basis of which the other sculptures there and elsewhere are attributed to him. From its article on the cathedral (Autun, §2(ii): Cathedral sculpture), "This is perhaps the most expressive representation of the Last Judgement in 12th-century sculpture " I'll fill it in. & add the necessary links elsewhere. I haven't even checked for the periodical literature yet. How much do you want at 7 AM on Sunday? DGG (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of course there is literature on it! It is a highly important work. Don't worry, I know where to find it, and stuff on all the 200 other important cathedral tympani. But what use is what, when the crap is removed, is only a one-line stub? We have more and better at Autun Cathedral, where in fact it should be redirected. If and when a proper article on the subject is written, it would only take 10 seconds to get to this level. Oddly enough, twenty minutes after I prodded it, Wetman raised that very tympanum at User_talk:Wetman#Category:Ivory_works_of_art - 3 years is about right I think. Categorising, renaming and removing actual inaccuracy from these crappy teen-stubs is a significant drain on editorial resources. As they are they reduce the value of the project. Prodding is often the best answer. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I think we agree that ultimately, the level of aggregation for works of art should be that each major work has an article. (Just as for major books and works of music the works have an article each.) From the comment you refer to, you intend working in a long time frame, going first with the periods, then the monuments, and eventually the woks, but for now staying with the more general articles.
    

I disagree. In addition to that strategy, we should rewrite, expand, and use them as they appear (It was never my intention to leave it as it was). Why wait three years until some unknown future person gets to it? While you & the other scholars are in a properly didactic way, the amateurs will none the less have articles on most of them ready for you to improve. Go do it your professional way, but I will continue to do it mine. You apparently dont want this because you feel obliged to fix them and it takes more time to do it unsystematically. A reasonable argument. But to me it's like not making articles on individual 19th century senators or MPs until we can do them all. WP is an amateur production at heart. We want to raise the standards, but this has to be by encouraging the amateurs, and helping them do so. But even if you want to do it your way, the way to avoid the elementary student articles is to make the redirects for the works now, ahead of time, systematically, as Wikipedia:Redirects with possibilities--at least that will get the names right. I agree there was so little in this that it might not have been worth the trouble--but now you';re discouraging me from taking the trouble. DGG (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "what do we do about it"

I replied at my talk page. Funny timing! I will likely not be on WP again until this evening; I was just here for a few minutes during my lunch at work. So I will review and respond to further replies only at that time. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Useful resource

David,

Peter Sheahan is a recognised expert on Generation Y. He consults globally to organizations including News Corporation and Google. His Generation Y DVD series on managing and retaining Generation Y is an extremely useful tool for organizations struggling to attract and retain the best Generation Y talent. How can a useful resource be classified as spam? My understanding is that most patrons of Wikipedia use it only as a reference for further research.

Please reply on to my talk page Samuel Michael Carter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Michael Carter (talk • contribs) 05:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

replied there; the work is self-published. DGG (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

magazines...

...and creative works in general cannot be deleted under speedy A7, per WP:CSD In any case, I think Railfan and Railroad might be one of the two leading magazines in its subject. did you check that? Please do not use speedy when not strictly within the specifications.'

Magazines are businesses, not creative works, and therefore fall squarely under {{db-corp}} guidelines -- which also explicitly refer to articles which make no assertion of notability, which this article doesn't. Your vague recollection doesn't qualify either as an assertion of notability nor a reliable source. Please do not wikilawyer about obvious failures of speedy standards and specifications. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it will quite possibly be deleted at afd, unless I or someone finds more material. Relative rank is capable of objective determination via Ulrich's. But as for speedy, WP:CSD: "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. " if you want to change the rules, discuss it there. I think you will find the consensus is clear about magazines. A book publisher is a company. A book is not. A record distributor is a company. A recording is not. A series of recordings is not. A boxed set of recordings is not. A magazine publisher is a company. A magazine is not. Speedy is not stretchable. What you call wikilawering I call following the rules. " There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 under that criterion." DGG (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboards, noticeboards, noticeboards!

I think I remember you chiming in when the No Original Research noticeboard was created as it being just an extra page to watch. We've now got the Fringe Theories, Fiction, NOR, and NPOV. I'm wondering if we're not spreading ourselves too thin over too many boards. Any ideas? MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We also have COI, and BLP, and RS, and the duplicative pair (ANB and AN/I), and BONB, and a number of similarly functioning pages, such as WT:SPAM, CP and its family, the various VPs and RfCs, WQA if it survives, the widely ignored RM and PM, and those I dont even know about). And the XfDs, the Ref Desks and the Help Desks, and AIV, 3RR and their relatives. And the talk pages for every policy and guideline prominent and obscure. And user talk pages where interesting stuff tends to be found. I organize what I do with bookmarks: I've got a group I call WPck (wikipedia check), and how far I get down the list of 30 or so 51, now that I've actually counted-- each day is variable--but I've never gotten to the bottom. Some in my opinion in practice tend to serve for POV pushing, such as BLP and FRINGE. (At some I agree more with the trend--like RS, so I don't call it POV pushing)

I forgot the talklists and IRC. I prefer to forget about IRC, and I wish I could really forget about the talklists.

But look at it in a positive way--it's forum shopping which keeps there from being any one WP:LOC.DGG (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Def going on my best of list. MBisanz ^talk 17:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Namecheck

Don't know if you've already been alerted to this? Go and search the text for DGG. Kudos! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion reform study group

Moved to User talk:DGG/Deletion reform -- please continue there. DGG (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are famous

(Kim Dent-Brown mentioned this above, a little cryptically, on 29 February 2008)
See here, if you have not seen it already.--Filll (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice ! --Hu12 (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No fair! I want my own newspaper article mention. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just vandalize the Signpost.--Father Goose (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

You were mentioned in a book review here Congratulations on it and id like to give you a barnstar but i belive you are the first editor to recive the honor of being in a book review. so id like you to make one........ get back to work now Rankun (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't let all this fame go to your head DGG :) --Pixelface (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

MFD closure

I replied on my talk page. Regards, — Κaiba 03:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC) and I followed up there. DGG (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

More information at User_talk:Zscout370#Previous_closure_at_DRV, I'll leave a note on Kaiba's page too. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I commented there to keep things centralized. I gather there was also some talk on chat about it, and I'd think it advisable to keep things on-wiki. DGG (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I summarized the chat on-wiki, as is the normal practice for maintaining transparency. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing I noticed (also by reading your user page) is that it seems that you're not really very happy with wikis at all. You always stay away from the wiki-page and use the discussion page instead, you say. :-/ Am I reading correctly? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

could you explain further, I do not really understand, but, iIf you mean that I think major changes should be discussed first, yes I do mean to say that; if you mean do I disapprove of BRD when used to disrupt pages and remove content, yes, I disapprove of that. Wikis are a means of collaboration for contributing and editing content. When the methods are used destructively, they are being used wrongly. DGG (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If people don't wiki-edit at all, then what's the point of using a wiki? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

With a wiki you can add material to an article, and i can add more, without any complicated need to check pages in an out or use complicated collaboration software. I've used a variety of them, and I hate them all. though this one does not avoid edit conflicts, and is therefore deficient in a major aspect--it should at least warn you before you try to save, not after,like gmail does--the simplicity is worth it. It is flexible in the changes it produces, which is good. The flexibility can be exploited to make major changes without agreement; this can still work if people are going in the same direction in a cooperative spirit. But it also permits people to be non-cooperative and try to push in contradictory ways. One person shoving is considered by most humans as license to shove back, and we know where that gets us. At best it gets into a shoving match, with victory to the guy who can get more people to shove with him. This can still work if people are friendly about it. But most humans aren't intrinsically. I know my personal reaction is to get extremely angry at the second shove, & the way I deal with it is to work on something else. the biggest bully usually wins, unless he resorts to tactics which bring on the authorities, and someone calls for them. After they block the bully for 24 hours, or even 6 months, everyone return with more friends. It's a tested way of organization, if what you want to do is organize gang fights. The Marxist dialectic was not a programme for peaceful change. DGG (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In other news, more on topic for the section header: I think we've managed to catch Zscout in the crossfire between us. We clearly have very different views of what correct MFD procedure is, and we're going to need to talk if we don't want to cause more collateral damage. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fame

seen your NY Book Review usernamecheck? Near the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Old news I see! Why are they online a three weerks before the publication date, i wonder? Better than another barnstar anyway. I'm incredibly patient too, & hope to see something on the Master of the Playing Cards one day! Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Jbmurray/Madness

(Copied over from my talk page:) DGG, many thanks for your comment. I'm glad that my text may be useful for the NYC meet. I'd be pleased to have any feedback or reactions that come out of that. And I do now indeed intend to publish a version of the essay somewhere. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A3 to Prod ?

Do you really think it is necessary to {{Prod}} for process? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think it necessary to follow the speedy criteria as written. Anything else leads to chaos Some people will delete appropriately, others not. The purpose of process is to prevent misuse, at the cost of going slightly slower. Of all WP process, I think PROD is the cleverest compromise. DGG (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ransom Center ?Spam?

Hi DGG, I recently noticed a situation that I thought might be of interest to you. On my watchlist in several places this evening I noticed a user adding links to special manuscript collections that are at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center. The editor Sashafresh did this pretty widely and was given a link spam warning User talk:Sashafresh#link additions. I assume the editor in question is a librarian or researcher at the Center, hence why I thought to mention the situation to you. On the one hand, I can see how it could be a very useful resource if more librarians helped connect Wikipedians with their resources; on the other hand, I see the potential for abuse. In the cases I looked at, the Ransom Center does have some remarkable manuscripts and such that would be of definite interest to the serious researcher. Anyways, I don't really plan on intervening in the situation, but thought I'd flag it for you. --JayHenry (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As you say, these will have to be examined individually. There's been previous discussion on this question, with respect to him and others, and the bar for adding such resources is very high. There are justified examples. There's a better solution, of course: to get copyright release for the first page of a manuscript, put a GFDL tag on a web illustration, and add it to commons. The legends will then show the institution. Adding these otherwise requires prior consensus on the article talk page, which might be obtainable for some of them. Let me try to get into contact off-wiki. DGG (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC) (dp)

Church of Google

Hi David - Please look at this AfD close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (3rd nomination) and some other conversation links User talk:The Placebo Effect#The Church of Google and User talk:Becksguy#Re:Church of Google, and offer some advise, if you would. Do you agree that the closing did not follow consensus as established in the AfD, or not. And do you advise a DRV or not. I think that every item in the nomination and all the delete arguments were successfully answered and refuted. The closer did not take my complied list within the AfD into account, a list that was in far better shape than the article references and that had been pruned and shaped based on input during the deletion discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I second Becksguy's concerns. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but that one was clearly a no consensus at worst. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought, LGRdC. No consensus at worst. — Becksguy (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A very surprising closing. A good admin, who merely made a mistake. Can't figure out why he simply didn't choose to correct it.DGG (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, what are you all saying? He just applied wikipedia's notability rules, after all wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. Vote counting and claiming consensus are not substitutes for following policies that have had huge amount of community consensus thrown at them for a long period of time until they adquired their current shape.

Also, notice the very first paragraph from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy consists of a single sentence: "The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how pages which do not meet the relevant content criteria are identified and removed from Wikipedia.". On the deletion discussion section, this gets hammered upon "Here, (on the nomination debates) editors who wish to participate can give their opinion on what should be done with the page. These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.". A bit later, it talks about consensus, but then it links to Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus where it says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted" (the word "not" is emphasized on the policy page, I didn't add any emphasis).

I'm afraid that the consensus on a nomination for deletion is about how the article complies with deletion criteria or not, and not about wether many people thought that it would be OK to keep the page. In this case, the article failed notability criteria, so it was a clear delete, and the admin acted correctly. Going to deletion review without providing additional sources would be gaming the system by faking victimism: "the bad admin deleted my page against consensus". No, he deleted the page following wikipedia policies, and he would have acted wrongly if he had done otherwise, and he would have failed his duty as admin.

Finally, if you think that these policies are wrong and that there are better ways to decide deletion, then you should go to the policies talk pages and suggest improvements. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole "democracy" versus "consensus" thing is actually somewhat contradictory. You cannot have consensus without some kind of majority of support. Thus, if a majority of editors want to keep an article on a website billed as the one that anyone can edit and the sum total of human knowledge, we should not appeal to some minority or narrow viewpoint of the project. That is just illogical and inconsistent with what "consensus" actually means. More editors believe the article merits inclusion. Thus, the consensus of the community is that the article be kept. Those advocating inclusion tend to actually work on improving the article. Those voting to delete did what to help the article? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion decisions don't use "consensus" in the sense you seem to give to the term, they use rough consensus, which I quoted on my comment, and which says clearly that some arguments, the ones going against policies among others, "are frequently discounted". Please see my quotes and read the linked page before trying to say again that "consensus" is on your side on a deletion debate, since wikipedia policies say that it's not, and admins know it. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Enric, I think you misunderstand the proper, limited, role of administrators. We do not judge articles, just evaluate the results of a discussions. We do not decide if an article meets notability criteria, we decide if the consensus at the article thinks it did. Our discretion is just to disregard irrelevant arguments, such as I like it. When I became an admin, I was asked to promise I would not close on the basis of what I personally thought notable; it had not occurred to be that I would ever want to do so, for I would surely be reversed at Deletion Review. Let's continue this there. DGG (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(Damn, I'm technically away, but I couldn't resist answering here) Yeah, that's what I meant, but I disagree on how the consensus is interpreted. He just judged the weight of the arguments behind the votes and decided not to take many of the votes into account because they were not valid keep reasons according to deletion policies, or based on false assumptions about the last nomination debate. He also decided the consensus by looking at the strenght of the remaining arguments, and not at the head count, just like the policies say. Let's make this clear (time to abuse the bolding again) Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus says that Wikipedia policy, (which requires WP:V, WP:OR, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPOV) is not negotiable. The admin claimed that the article was in breach of the notability policy, and arguments from editors didn't convince him that this was not true, so he had to decide a delete. That's why I say that he appears to have acted correctly. Head count can not superseed policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. The "non-negotiable" mutation is spreading. Well, thank goodness Wikipedia:consensus is policy, and Wikipeida:non negotiable does not even have a page. Said paragraph has been taken out and shot. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, Kim, please don't take this that I am going to tell you as an insult. How about if I tell you that you haven't actually read WP:CONSENSUS, because the you would have noticed that in the exceptions section it says exactly what I have been saying here. I quote "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline".

As you see, a small consensus on a deletion nomination is just not going to override a policy or a guideline just like that. Saying that a certain idea has the consensus necessary to override a policy is an obvious fallacy, since if you actually had all that consensus then you could just go to the policy page and request that the policy be changed to acommodate the consensus.

If you look at WP:PILLARS you will also see that consensus is part of the "code of conduct" pillar, while verifiability is part of the "encyclopedia". As a rule of thumb, I consider that any user saying that a part of one pillar can override a part of another pillar is probably wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

perhaps this discussion would be more productive elsewhere. its not as if we were likely to settle it between us. I'll end this thread by summarizing my general views on the most general issues: The difficult questions at Wikipedia are where policies appear to conflict. Though these conflicts could be regarded as productive of discord, I see them more as leading to flexibility. It is multiple discussions on detail that change consensus. Policy is explanatory of what we agree to do at WP, not forced on us from above. DGG (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you are right, I got carried away trying to "win" the argument. Thanks for reacting so well and fairly. I guess we can go over these issues sometime on the future on some DRV, and they I'll watch my words more and try to be more respectful --Enric Naval (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

SPOV Question

Hi there DGG - I asked a question in response to yours, and I'm afraid that it's gotten lost in the hubbub on the talk:NPOV page. I'm reposting it here because, rather than the question being a rhetorical argument, I'm looking to get your practical input. I can't answer this question, myself, right now, and I'm looking to your experience for some guidance. Here is the question, in part: I think that what you are saying largely works - but there are specific instances where I think there would still be trouble. For example, I'd be interested to get your thoughts regarding some fringe-science articles where no SPOV material has been published on the subject. What would be a fair presentation of SPOV for such a subject, keeping in mind WP:NOR? In other words, there is new stuff coming from the fringe every day (and by fringe, I mean to include both the stuff that is "garbage" and the stuff that, after community examination, ultimately becomes folded into the mainstream). I'm not sure how to present material like this without either (a) giving it undue weight by presenting it in a vacuum of other ideas, or (b) performing original research and comparing it in some way to the mainstream. This may not be the best formulation of the problem as I see it, but it gets across my basic concern. Thanks, Antelan^talk 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied to this yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view; I see your comments there, and I will continue there in more detail. But to summarize, this is a recurrent and difficult question. Basically, there is almost always some SPOV material available. It's OK if it takes 5 paragraphs to present an absurd idea so it makes as much sense as it's going to make, with one paragraph at the end to give the information that shows to any reasonable person that it's nonsense (along with having this also in the lede paragraph) Balance doesnt have to be measured in words. It doesn't after all take much science to clarify most of this stuff. If the SPOV is the valid one and well presented, anyone not committed to the idea will understand after even a short presentation. In fact, strategically it's even better.

So the problem shows up mainly where there's no science at all Most of the time, either t here is not enough pseudoscience to make it notable as such, in which case we don't need an article on it at all, or it is so ridiculous that just explaining it makes it clear what the status is. Nobody thinks wee endorse the ideas in our articles.DGG (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Twist character article

Hi saw that you removed the prod from the above article and plan to maybe expand it. With regard to any future possible prodding of the article, I do believe it is important that there are two articles to distinguish Oliver Twist the character from Oliver Twist the book, as seems to be quite standard in other similar articles (Hamlet for instance). As you have seen the article about the character clearly needs some work doing on it. I will also try to add to it maybe once you have had chance to add content? Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Other instances like this have been challenged in the past, and I hope to get to it before the deletionists start attacking it. But don't wait for me--add what you can find now. I think a section on cultural references mighty be relevant--most popular culture use of it is about the character, not the book. DGG (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, in case you're interested, Tangerines has moved Oliver Twist (character) on a long way now. Well worth keeping! - Fayenatic (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Communist Propaganda AfD

I do think you have missed the point a bit on this one. Did you read my entire !vote? "not a notable scholarly subject, because nothing (or vanishingly little) has been written about what is common to propaganda from various communist countries, parties and communist organisations." I happen to be fairly certain that such sources do not exist - except, maybe, in long-discredited John Birch Society pamphlets. More to the point, none have been produced.

As I said, "Propaganda in the Soviet Union"/"by the Soviet Union" are perfectly acceptable articles, and not under discussion. Please note that the Western propaganda redirect sends us to the Chomsky theory of propaganda in advanced capitalist societies, which makes precisely the above sort of argument - that there is a common thread to the propaganda output in these societies. Note also that it is presented there as a theory, as well. Were any similar theories to be found in reliable sources about propaganda from societies and parties as diverse as Cuba, the Soviet Union, North Korea, the Communist Party of South Africa, the Shining Path, and the Socialist Unity Centre of India, or even any sources that claimed to make that connection, as the Chomsky theory does for other equally diverse societies and organisations, the situation would be different. Otherwise we are left with people using "communist propaganda" as shorthand for particular, different, communist parties. Jumbling them together would be unacceptable synthesis, and get anyone who did so a failing grade in most undergraduate courses.

I was particularly disappointed and dismayed. because if one of our most experienced commenters on deletion debates does not see the danger of "articles titled with weakly-defined referents, which are then used as soapboxes for whatever form of original research people with a bunch of different POVs turn up with a single Google search on the title phrase", then we are indeed in trouble, and it explains the losing battle some of us are fighting trying to keep advocacy swill of various flavours out of the mainspace.

Could you perhaps revisit your vote? --Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

replied on the AfD page: the subjects overlap.

I'm now going to be heretical--I think the best way to deal with some issues is a policy change to permit ideological forking in articles. I think we do it implicitly in some cases already, and that we might as well do it explicitly. Otherwise we end up with uncomfortable attempts at synthesis which if they ever reach a compromise, do it by reducing an article to meaninglessness. Instead of subheadings "criticism" we should have "X views on" and "Y views on." But I'm certainly not arguing the afd on that basis, for such is not the current policy. DGG (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As I spelled out there, I still think you're wrong :)

Anyway, I'm actually thinking very hard about what you just threw out up there. If we can't keep our mainspace free, perhaps we can keep certain articles free. Hmmm. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Polyglycoplex

It first appeared in the Calgary paper, which isn't some small-town outfit with a circulation 200; it serves a city of around 500K. If they thought it was notable enough, & if a second paper, the local here (the Star-Phoenix) picked it up (for a city pop 200K), thought it was, I would have thought that would do it. Me? I thought a new way of reducing obesity without evident health hazard was of sufficient interest people might just want to know. And given the number of pages about obscure stuff that have slim chance of even making a major newspaper, I'd say it passes. Of course, I am a bit biased, having created the page, but I'd never have bothered if I didn't think there were people like me who might find it interesting, or valuable. Trekphiler (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the book mentioned on the page, I'm completely at sea. I'd never heard of it before, & I'm completely unqualified to comment. A quick google comes up 15300, led by CTV, which is probably just a reprint, & a bunch of hits for Slim Styles "diet food". Trekphiler (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been invoked

In the New York Review of Books, no less: Nicholson Baker mentions you as a "patient librarian". Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny that among librarians I am considered to have a noticeable lack of patience -- guess it depends on the surrounding environment. (smile) DGG (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Purgatory

Thanks for looking at this. I just chanced on the article.

I found the article unclear as to what "St. Patrick's Purgatory" IS. Is it the name of the pilgrimage? Is it the final destination of the pilgrimage? It is the area where the pilgrimage takes place? (I suppose it could be all three.)

It was when I got to the part about pilgrims being allowed only black tea or coffee and dry toast that I thought maybe it was an April First article.

The bit about an account of the pilgrimage being contained in McCarthy's Bar was what pushed me to ask for another opinion. (That and some other hoax edits I found yesterday.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The name is used primarily for the actual area, not just the pilgrimage. The article does have some elements that are either jocular or derived from a tourist brochure. I'll check on them. DGG (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Webisodes" and the like

Nice to see we can occasionally agree on something! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ice Culinary

Thanks for the pointing out of the style information. We're working directly with Lisa Pisano, the PR director at ICE to build out this page. Iceculinarynyc (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Questionable_journals.

Could I invite you to this discussion related to further tweaks to the Scholarship section of WP:RS. I want to try and get this right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Marketing 2.0

Hi. :) With regards to this article, I just wanted to note that the article seems to have been created in May of 2007 (in the edit summary, I wrote September--I missed the versions before it!), whereas the suspect source is dated December 12 2007. It seems like if there is a violation, it's the other way around! There may be an older source from which this is lifted, but I haven't been able to find evidence of that yet. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll check again & if I don't find something I'll undelete it. Thanks for spotting this, --I must have been working too fast.DGG (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lectures

Apparently you've already done talks about aspects of wikipedia? We're going to be doing skypecasts by the Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly crew now. I'm wondering if you might be interested in presenting a lecture?

It's important to show people different views and approaches to wikipedia.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks DGG for being what seems the only editor to support the page I've been working on user:klostermankl/careflash [CareFlash] and saving it from deletion. I appreciate the types of projects you do on here. Any help is welcome. I am just a beginner. Anyhow, I just wanted to say thanks. Kyra Klostermankl (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sixth International Congress on Tuberculosis

Challenge Award - fame at last?

Have you seen the mention you got in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science/Newsletter/May 2008? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to mention this. Thanks for starting Gunther Stent!--ragesoss (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since he was my advisor, I sort of felt guilt not having done it.DGG (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Vattikutti Question

Hey, quick question on this AfD, which I don't feel out of place discussing because you've already !voted. I could substantially re-write the article but when the nom is an admin arguing loudly for deletion, is there any chance it will be kept? Honestly, I don't want to waste time re-writing more than I did which just addressed the main advert issues if it's only going to be deleted. Thanks _Cari ^{Fellow Travellers} 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

to the extent that my own keeps on sometimes dubious articles are sometimes accepted, its because I am known to be willing to work on improving them--the time to do it is immediately at afd, not just promises for the future. Do it now, and call attention to it at the afd. If by any chance the article is rejected, your better one can be used either for deletion review, or for further improvement and then insertion. Ironically, I just this minute came here and saw this after going back to that article and elaborating my earlier opinion. Loud self-assured talking does not always have much to do with the results of an afd, and one particular admin's view of the effect of COI is not necessarily the consensus. DGG (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, I've never found you to be as adamant in your POV to be arguing with keeps/deletes, as it may be. I just wasn't sure when admin overruled consensus. I'll go work on it a little more per your suggestion. I already noted in a comment to one of Hu12's that I'd done some clean-up to demonstrate notability from external sources. Talk to-Cari^{the Busy Bee} 03:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

the proof that admin views as opposed to valid policy arguments does not overinfluence afd decisions is that admins are usually to be found on the opposite sides of anything interesting. In fact, one gets to be an admin in considerable part because people respect one's views as expressed at AfD and similar discussions. DGG (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I don't think there's a single admin who I haven't thought "HUH?" about one of their decisions/comments but I usually at least understand where it's coming from/based in, even if I don't agree. I did a re-write and left a note, we'll see what happens. I'm not so passionate about this article that I'm going to spend hours on it, but it does appear notable. I think I'll request it to be userfied if it's deleted and I can work on it then Talk to_Cari^{the Busy Bee} 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WW in America

I disagree; WW in America is the one I was in. They had no QC, no documentation requirements, nothing. I wouldn't depend on them for anything more substantial than a mailing address. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If they included you, they probably had a reason. I think it was perhaps the appearance at the Dem Convention. (I havent checked for dates or the like) There is the quality control of not wanting to appear in public in a prominent & permanent place like a jackass. I suppose its time to look for another academic study on them, because libraries do use and recommend them. DGG (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, my invitation to be in WWiA was before my stint as a DNC delegate (I may be wrong); when I failed to order a copy of the volume, I was quietly dropped from the next edition. My concern is that I could have lied through my teeth about academic background, employment history, offices held, etc., and apparently they would have taken my word for it. In this era of padded resumes, this is a matter of grave concern for all users of reference materials. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Will take a look at it again, & ask some colleaguesDGG (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time and fate deities in popular culture

from the AfD: Do you really think that all IPC articles are inherently unencylopedic? The kind that usually wind up at AfD tend to be a terrible mess, but there are a few good ones out there. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

passing by. I think that almost all of them are in fact encyclopedic as summaries and reorganisations of material elsewhere. DGG (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

.......... (copied here by Stifle)

Yes, I do, but primarily because I am a deletionist. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As a deletionist then, what do you want deleted? all articles on all topics? or what do you think in particular applies here to all of them? ? (I note that I am in general an inclusionist, but only in general--I almost never say all of anything should be kept -- or deleted. And the balance varies by topic--for example, i think most primary school articles contain only dictionary information & should be deleted or merged or redirected--but that's most, not all. For the topic here, IPC, I said almost all. Definitely not all--some of them are incurably overspecific or overbroad or inadequate. DGG (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Debbie McGrath

Regarding previous conversations on Brookside characters, in which you have indicated interest, please see the above article. Hiding T 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC). Commented there extensively, to summarize my general views on such articles. DGG (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. I would like to thank you for your comments in these AfDs. It seems that if we discuss we can really clean fictional characters articles and create some good ones. It seems we are in the middle of an edit war between deletionists and inclucionists and many actions lack of common sense. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

since Arb Com did not take the responsibility to give a little more guidance, people are trying to see how much they can get away with, in the hope of setting policy by wearing out the other side. (The deletionists in fact almost managed this a while back, with popular culture.) Every proposal on the policy pages for compromise has been sabotaged by someone refusing to bend, so I am beginning to feel reluctant to make moderate proposals lest they be considered a sign of weakness. At one current AfD, in fact, someone said they refused to be bound by a workgroup's policy, when it was one of the few policies which had reached a state of compromise. DGG (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

afd idea

I know what I had down for improving the AFD is a little complex but the comments are showing me how I could fine tune it to be a rather simple addition without beurcratic overhead. --MASEM 04:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Belated reply

On my talk page a week ago, you expressed alarm over my dislike of long plot summaries on Wikipedia. At the time, I was too busy to give a decent reply. Since then, I've detailed part of my feelings about the issue at Wikipedia:Plot summaries#The spoiler issue. Although I don't mention it there, I wouldn't be opposed to having long plot summaries on Wikipedia, provided articles were structured in a way that the summaries didn't spoil works in the careless and unnecessary way that we presently do. Whether that means plot summaries should go at the end of articles, be put on separate pages, hidden in collapsible boxes, or have its "spoiler" material removed and relocated to commentary sections, I don't know. But the way we structure things right now, Wikipedia almost seems to go out of its way to spoil works of fiction. This makes it unusable as a reference source for anyone who has not yet seen or read a given work. This is totally unnecessary, and must be changed.--Father Goose (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry if I oversimplified--I may have been in a hurry too. Maybe the solution to the spoiler problem is expandable sections. I have no objection to reworking things and experimenting with format to meet a variety of needs. I myself usually come here for something I'm never going to see or read, so I dont care about spoilers, but I can see that other people might want it differently. Possible a summary section and then a fuller one might be the way. But how can one describe the characters or setting when one doesnt know the ending? How can one talk about Sauron when one doesnt know what will happen to him? do we say in Hamlet, that if you want to find out whether he dies at the end, go read the play?

Come to think of it there is a very simple solution, requiring no browser-incompatibility problems of difficulty with slow connections: an article about the fiction, giving the general idea. and then a separate article: Plot of XYZ. Of course, it was the attack on such articles as unencyclopedic that got this started a year ago. fortunately, the current version of NOT PLOT refers not to articles, but to the overall Wikipedia "coverage" of the work. and fortunately it has since then been accepted that the work itself is a RS for such material. I added some rather strong comments today at WT:FICT that the important part of the coverage of fiction should be the content of fictional work itself; the out of universe description will often be just a minor part of the whole. Let's not throw out the material while we are figuring out the mechanics of how to present it. DGG (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Creation of cosmos

Do you think there was a better speedy delete category to use? And if not, after looking at the text of the deleted article, do you think there was any conceivable argument (1) that the article should be kept on Wikipedia as it was, or (2) that it had any potential to be improved into an acceptable article that wasn't already covered by Creationism, Creation-evolution controversy, Book of Genesis, or similar articles? If so, I'd like to hear the argument. If not, are you arguing that the article should have been kept around for 5 days because "rules are rules"? If so, I disagree, see WP:IAR (a policy I hardly ever cite, but it seems appropriate here). NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any speedy delete category to use. It had been nominated for prod, and that would have done just fine. Or if someone were stubborn enough to remove the prod, it would be a snow afd. When I became an admin I undertook to follow the rules; you've been an admin longer than I, but that does not exempt you either. Either restore it, or I will. DGG (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• You didn't address the second part of my question -- is there any conceivable way that this could be made into a useful, non-duplicative article? If not, it's just silly to repost it purely for the sake of process. Per WP:SNOW: "For example, if an article is deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it." Rather than reposting such a doomed article yourself purely for the sake of process, why don't you go to Wikipedia:Deletion review? If there is actually a consensus there to repost the article, I'll be glad to do it then. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

two eds have now asked you. Thats enough reason. SNOW is an essay. WP:Deletion policy is policy. There's a difference. I am not interested in trying to keep the article, but in trying to persuade you that it is a good idea to follow the rules. DGG (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Two editors, neither of whom actually wants to keep the article. And yes, WP:SNOW is not policy -- but WP:IAR is policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I assert that deleting Creation of cosmos, as quickly as possible, improves Wikipedia, and that there is no way in which keeping the page, even for 5 days, could potentially improve Wikipedia. You haven't argued otherwise. Also, see the following from Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means:

• "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored."
• "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." I believe I have done that by pointing out that Creation of cosmos, as a blatant religious tract, does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Nobody, so far, disagrees with that.
• ""Ignore all rules" does not stop you from pointing out a rule to someone who has broken it, but do consider that their judgment may have been correct, and that they almost certainly thought it was." I don't mind you asking for the explanation, but insisting that I repost the page is elevating the letter of the rule over its spirit, and ignoring the common purpose of building an encyclopedia.
• ""Ignore all rules" is not an answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons." As explained above, I believe I had a good reason here -- I wasn't just ignoring the rules because I felt like ignoring the rules. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that you had a reason--you wanted to quickly delete a bad article. I disagree that it was an adequate reason. If IAR is the only way to get an article out of WP, thats one thing; if IAR is the only way to get rid immediately of something actually acutely harmful, that would be a good reason, though I doubt that it would ever be necessary, for I can't imagine what is acutely harmful besides vandalism and BLP violations and other libel and copyvio, and we already have rules for that. I don't necessarily insist you repost the page--but you really should stop deleting via speedy against the explicit deletion policy and then justifying it by IAR. I think a valid use of Deletion Review and insisting on a repost is to stop people from doing that. Of course there are other ways. How about, for example, my trying to persuade you that it casts discredit on all the policies when experienced admins ignore them? that is discourages newbies when their material is deleted and nobody can point to a specific policy based written reason why? that its unnecessary altogether, for I don't think you can give a reason why 4 more days there would hurt the encyclopedia? The unfair treatment of editors--even ignorant ones, even POV ones, on the other hand, that does the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider the quick deletion in this case unnecessary. I think that having an article full of stuff like "There is an excellent proof of the creation of the universe. It is called "The Word of God". Let us see what the Bible has to tell about creation." is harmful to Wikipedia, even for one day. It violates numerous core policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:SOAP. But I will take to heart your caution about deleting articles out of process, and will be very careful in the future. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks, that what I was after. I agree it was harmful, just as any bad article is,and everyone agrees it is better off deleted. I'll gladly support SNOW at AfD for article like this. DGG (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like I missed the meat of the debate here, but I'll add a couple of closing comments. Nawlin, I accept that you had a reason under WP:IAR. Personally I disagree in this case and would have left it, but I accept that you had a sensible reason. Part of my concern was that when I first saw you delete it with 'PROD' in the edit summary, I thought maybe you'd just rushed it through without really thinking - which I see now is not the case. I'd also echo DGG's comment about scaring off newbies if we appear to ignore policy, though I accept that this particular newbie may not have been the most likely to contribute constructively.

Anyway looks like we're all happy to draw a line under this at this point. Thanks for remaining civil throughout. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 08:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M41A pulse rifle

Hello - seeing that you commented on this AfD, could I have you give it another look?

I have two main problems with the process in this case. First off, the nominator removed/redirected all the links to these articles in the AfD BEFORE the AfD was decided. I think this is problematic.

Secondly, he lumped all of them together in one AfD, even though many of the articles have quite a bit of content in them, which makes me feel this, again, is inappropriate. This also causes an associated problem, because I have now been doing quite a bit of work on Sulaco (spaceship) in response to noticing the AfD, and feel that it has enough references and shows enough notability to stand on its own.

So as above, could you be so kind and look at the discussion again? Ingolfson (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done so, and commented on some remarks that had been made DGG (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plot summaries

I feel that the work at Wikipedia:Plot summaries is a proposal for a guideline and should be tagged as such, which I did the other day. Tagging it has it causes it to appear in the list at Category:Wikipedia proposals. It seems to me that some people are trying to work around the processes by removing the tag. However, I have ultimate faith in your good judgement. Do you share my concern? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should really be tagged with something, but let's not argue about it as well--we have enough actual problems & debates over tagging are what really get away from the point. Is it a guideline separate from WP:FICT? or is it a special part of MOS:FICT. Logically, its a special part of MOS. But on the other hand, that sort of hides it in the general MOS morass. Perhaps it is better to keep it as a peripheral discussion, but I'm open to suggestions. More important, -this subject is now essentially being discussed in at least 4 places. It will be hard enough to get agreement at one, let alone 4 simultaneously. I can't follow them all myself, not unless I want to do nothing else here at all. And there seems to be no agreement whether to work from WP:PLOT down, or from MOS up. Even more important, can you think of any method to reach compromise, except for one side trying to wear out the other? DGG (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) I feel better that you are aware of the tagging issue and I'll stay out of it. (2) Having the discussion in 4 places is inefficient , but I don't know of a solution. (3) I don't think that a solution for controlling content can be "legislated" since there is no real method for enforcement, short of the methods used for enforcing BLP, which is itself problematic. Theoretically, guidelines only document actual practices at WP, but since there is no consistency in practice, it follows that there could be no consistent guideline written. I think that it needs to be left to the editors at the individual pages to determine the content of plot summaries. Good luck, and I'm happy to chat about this more if you'd like. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF revision suggestion

I am trying to "test the waters" to see if there is enough interest in revising WP:PROF to better reflect the arguments that are actually used in practice in academic-related AfDs. I've put a note about it at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) with a somewhat more detailed explanation. There is also a link there to a possible draft of a revised version of WP:PROF, which is located in my sandbox, User:Nsk92/Sandbox3. Since you regularly participate in academic-related AfDs, I'd like to hear your input about this idea, both in general and in terms of specifics. If you have some comments, please post them at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). You are also welcome to edit User:Nsk92/Sandbox3 in the meantime. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a start at commenting, and also at adding & subtracting some things to the guidelines. You beat me too it. I don't want to move too fast though, because many of the people who will want to comment are busy at this time of year.  :) DGG (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: question

Yes, it's intended to cover all areas, not just homeopathy. Kirill ^(prof) 02:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I had asked Kirill, speaking of the board proposed at ArbCom in the decision on Homeopathy:

--is the expert board in the Homeopathy case meant to deal only with homeopathy? I'm a little puzzled how you can find a board of experts capable of making decisions on all subjects. But at least the decision should say one way or the other.DGG (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(this refers to:

The [Arbitration] Committee shall convene a Sourcing Adjudication Board, consisting of credentialed subject-matter experts insofar as is reasonable, which shall be tasked with examining complaints regarding the inappropriate use of sources on Wikipedia. The Board shall issue findings, directly to the Committee, regarding all questions of source usage, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Whether an editor has engaged in misrepresentation of sources or their content.
2. Whether an editor has used unreliable or inappropriate sources.
3. Whether an editor has otherwise substantially violated any portion of the sourcing policies and guidelines.

The Board's findings shall not be subject to appeal except to the Board itself. The precise manner in which the Board will be selected and conduct its operations will be determined, with appropriate community participation, no later than one month after the closure of this case.

I have startled and alarmed at the reply, and have answered him briefly:

you say it is intended to cover all subjects--I think that's a total perversion of the spirit of wikipedia, and I sincerely hope the community is persuaded to reverse you and take back the power. What you are essentially proposing to do is establish a small board of censors with a veto power over the contents of all articles. For it does affect all the content--the sourcing is in practice what determines what content is included. You are in one moment totally reversing the basic power structure here--after years of saying that arb com will not involve itself with content, and that this remains something that needs consensus, you are adopting for the demands of a single case the total opposite, calling for the selection of a small body to do the same, and with the most drastic penalties over anyone who departs from it, and no power of appeal from it. Well, I hope we will consider ourselves left with at least the power to abolish it. Before doing something like this, you need a general discussion with the community. I'm surprised at you.

I can not see how any small group can possibly take such responsibilities and prepare to discharge them honestly. There's nowhere where a small commission has that sort of universal power across all subjects--there are always a large number of editors, divided into subject committees. The only role of the ultimate editor-in-chief or board exercising this function, is to appoint them, and to decide the differences between the different groups.

Even in the organization of Citizendium, this power id delegated to what, even in their small organization, is over a hundred experts, grouped into several dozen disciplinary committees, and a fairly large board to resolve difficulties between them.

I am preparing a longer rebuttal. I am truly surprised at you--I can not believe you have thought out the implications. DGG (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're quite correct here; it's perfectly normal, in my experience, for charges of academic dishonesty to be heard before (or appealed to) a single, cross-disciplinary group. The proposed SAB is essentially intended to be a Wikipedia parallel to such proceedings (minus the imposition of sanctions, which will continue to be done by the Committee based on the recommendations of the SAB); it's not meant to be a body for deciding content, in other words, but a body for ruling on whether some editor has been intellectually dishonest in their use of sources. Kirill ^(prof) 04:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If its intended with that narrow a purpose, you might want to reword it accordingly, for that's not how it reads to me. Authority to examine "complaints regarding the use of sources in Wikipedia" is alarmingly broad. And the 3 numbered circumstances in where it is proposed to be used are quite expansive. They cover a great deal more than dishonesty. At the very least the phrase should be added "when they arise in matters that are before the Arb Com."-- you may think that's implied, but if something can be misinterpreted, so it will be. Anyway, do you think that in the academic world charges of dishonesty are handled all that well in general? The questions that arise in the homeopathy article need a knowledge of how the medical literature work, and others will deal with other questions. To the extent I understand them its not a question of being dishonest, but a question of whether something is being used in somewhat beyond what the source indicates--essentially a matter of proper weight. DGG (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. But, as the remedy says, "The precise manner in which the Board will... conduct its operations will be determined with appropriate community participation". The remedy is a general statement of intent, not an exhaustive policy regarding how the SAB will operate in practice; that's still to be developed. Kirill ^(prof) 13:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent primal therapy problems

Hello DGG. I wanted to thank you for your intervention on the Primal Therapy article recently.

I have a question. The editor who started an edit war with you (PsychMajor902) runs a separate website in which he has made claims that Janov's pr center (and primal therapy generally) is an abusive authoritarian cult. In support of that position, he related experiences of his which were drastically different from what I recall when I went there about 7 years ago. When I was there, I did not witness any of the extremely abusive or bizarre things he relates on his website. So I published a small website which included my own experiences and put it on the web.

Anyway, the same person frequently makes accusations on wikipedia that various persons are cultists or are being paid by A Janov to edit the page. At one point the administrator MoonRiddenGirl was repeatedly accused of being "authoritarian", "cultic", of secretly being an agent for primal therapy, etc. And I have repeatedly been accused of "having financial motives" and being a cultist, when those things are untrue (I left the center many years ago).

Anyway, now that you've removed not only his quotation of himself, but the citation to his website, he has added some new material to his website which claims that your removal constitutes cultic suppression and is further evidence that primal therapy is a cult. Furthermore, he claims that the page has been "turned into an advertisement for primal therapy". Here is the relevant text, taken from bullet points of reasons for believing primal therapy is a cult, from the section entitled "Is primal therapy a cult?"

The posting of faithful praise by primal followers on book reviews. The editing out of criticism and the editing in of praise online (e.g. wikipedia, which at the time of writing has become an online advertisement for primal therapy) by primal people.

I'm considering writing on my website that the removal of information was done by wikipedia administrators, not by "primal people", and that 4 neutral wikiepdia editors from the Reliable Sources noticeboard agreed beforehand that the quotation was inappropriate. I'm also considering quoting the wiki article (with its extremely long criticism section) as evidence that the article has not been turned into an "online advertisement for primal therapy" by primal people. I would also mention that no "primal people" have ever removed even a single critical citation from that article, even though some of the citations are very obscure. I would also like to point out that the author has made a large number of extremely peculiar accusations on the wiki discussion boards, including: accusations that admins (MoonRiddenGirl) are "cultic", accusations that people have financial motives to edit the page, and other improbable accusations. I feel that such information may help readers to determine the credibility of his "eyewitness testimony" regarding cultism, etc.

However I wished to consult with you first. Do you think there would be anything inappropriate about my adding such material to my website?

Thanks for your attention, and sorry for the overlong response. Twerges (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You may do whatever you like. You have the right to quote anything you please. I consider what he said totally incorrect, if it be as you have reported it. But let me explain--my motive is to ensure a fair article, not manipulated by the opponents or the supporters of primal therapy. It is my experience that fair articles on subjects such as this are almost invariably considered insufficiently supportive by the ardent proponents of the system being discussed, and insufficiently dismissive by the most ardent of the opponents. In such situation editors without an emotional investment in the matter are often needed to help produce an article that objectively represents the situation. You will note I said editors, not administrators. Any objective editor can do this, some of the best people at this are editors who have never been administrators, and I worked at this long before I became an administrator.

I have no intention of looking to see what you or anyone else may say about me off-wiki--doing so is guaranteed to increase one's feeling of general annoyance. People have full freedom to say what they like off-wiki, as long as they do not attempt to use off-wiki channels to interfere with the neutrality of Wikipedia articles.

But in order that you and others not be confused about my true opinion, and that my efforts for a neutral article be understood correctly, I personally do consider primal therapy a cult. I consider it a dangerous cult, to be more precise, and i think any objective reading of the evidence shows it. I have said the same about other suggested therapeutical systems, such a homeopathy. I think the best way of handling such subjects is to write objective articles, and those people not having irremediable bias will realize what the true nature of the situation is. A fair balance of the evidence is the way to do it. Excessive efforts to prove or disprove a cause do not help, but can even have the opposite effect. Uninvolved people tend to think that parties showing evident bias are perhaps also in the wrong. The only way to demonstrate the truth is to demonstrate it fairly and show the opposite view has been taken into account also.

If anyone makes use of my statements or edits to indicate that I have any sympathy with this theory they misrepresent me. But it's not something which i feel any strong personal involvement about, and so I think I can edit it, along with the thousands of other things in the world I think unfortunate or dangerous or even evil--just as I can edit those I approve of.

I did not approve of some the edits of those on both side of the issue, including some of yours. I think you as well as other editors made efforts to unbalance the articles, and I urge you as well as the others not to continue doing so. DGG (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG, what is your expertise in Primal Therapy? Aussiewikilady (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

zero actual experience; if I had any actual experience, it would presumably have left me with either a strongly positive or negative reaction to it, and then I would have been emotionally involved, and possibly unable to edit accurately, and certainly to try to work towards a neutral POV. that's the whole point. I did read some of Janov's book a long time ago, enough so I was interested in looking at the matter in the first place. . On the other hand, I do have a considerable amount of experience in reading and evaluating biomedical and other technical material, and teaching others to do so also. I certainly do know ho recognize what constitutes a supported therapeutic positive or negative claim and what constitutes mere opinion. But anyone with common sense can form a judgment about ordinary things once they understand the language, and to judge when experts are talking from a position of prejudice as contrasted to sound authority. I have, you know, taken that position here with regard to so-called expert opinion in wikipedia in quite a range of subjects. And this is confirmed by the fact that several other noninvolved editors seem to be judging pretty much the same as I have. DGG (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

response

Hello DGG. I read your comments and I'd like to offer a brief (I promise!) response.

But in order that you and others not be confused about my true opinion... I consider it a dangerous cult, to be more precise, and i think any objective reading of the evidence shows it. I have said the same about other suggested therapeutical systems, such a homeopathy.

I had made no assumptions about your true opinion.

I don't agree that primal therapy is a dangerous cult, or homeopathy for that matter. I think that there is a tremendous difference between saying something lacks scientific evidence to support it (like homeopathy) and saying that it's a dangerous cult. However it's not important for us to agree on those points.

If anyone makes use of my statements or edits to indicate that I have any sympathy with this theory they misrepresent me.

I had no intention of indicating that you had any agreement with primal therapy. I have no intention of representing your views on any subject. In fact, I had assumed from the beginning that you probably had no agreement with primal therapy.

I did not approve of some the edits of those on both side of the issue, including some of yours. I think you as well as other editors made efforts to unbalance the articles, and I urge you as well as the others not to continue doing so.

I honestly have no idea which of my edits would unbalance the article. Of course, that may be because I'm so biased that I don't realize it! But I honestly have no idea.

My recent edits were: 1) removing PsychMajor's quotation of himself after the RS noticeboard had formed a consensus; 2) re-adding the "pseudoscience" label to the page, after I had accidentally removed it; 3) re-adding the text about Primal Therapy not being accepted and having no studies to support it; 4) removed 3 superfluous quotations and replacing them with summaries; 5) added a few critical citations; 6) removed my own reference to my own website, since the reference to PsychMajor's website was deleted and mine was no longer necessary to maintain NPOV.

I really don't know what I did that could un-balance the article. In fact it almost seems that much of my recent activity could be interpreted as being in opposition to primal therapy. If you could tell me what I did to unbalance the article, then perhaps I could realize what I'm doing wrong, and could stop doing it.

Thanks, Twerges (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not addressing just you, (& in that phrase not primarily you, actually), but the other people who were likely to read it. I give my own opinion on the subject as my own opinion, and nobody has to agree with it. I don;t put it into articles, or even into discussions of them. Most of your recent editing has, in fact, been pretty good. DGG (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

one more thing

I was not addressing just you, (& in that phrase not primarily you, actually), but the other people who were likely to read it.'

Oh, ok. I misunderstood you.

Most of your recent editing has, in fact, been pretty good.

Thanks.

I've enabled my email.

...I do have one last concern.

These edit wars recently have become quite taxing. When I post an argument or idea in discussion, the response invariably doesn't even address the points that I raised, but rather makes claims about my supposed evil/cultic motives. When I respond in turn by posting the policies about assume good faith, their subsequent response is usually further accusations about my motives.

This was illustrated when I tried to move a "Discover Magazine" reference from the "peer-reviewed journals" section to a different section, since "Discover Magazine" is not a peer-reviewed journal. The response was labelling of my edit as "cultic", and the pressing of "undo" many times. When the editor was asked (by someone else) why he had done that, he responded that I intended to use the movement of the magazine as a "springboard" for an "attack" on the criticism section! Of course I had no such intention.

Obviously, debate/consensus with such people is impossible if they can't even get past my alleged motives.

When I take the issue to a noticeboard instead, these editors respond by flouting the consensus from the noticeboard and by pressing "undo" repeatedly anyway. Then they start edit wars with the neutral editors and call into question their neutrality. When administrators show up, they start edit wars with the administrators, and press "undo" many times. Once, they even accused the administrator of being a cultist and called into question her motives.

The editors in question appear to me to be relentlessly irrational. The only kind of argument they ever use is the ad hominem kind. That would be fine by itself, but they interfere constantly with everything.

I have no idea what to do here. These editors don't stop until they get a "final warning" from an administrator. Since I can't issue warnings of any kind, it seems to make editing (by me) an impossibility. I'm interested in your advice as to how I should approach this problem.

Feel free to respond to me by email if that's what you prefer.

Thanks for your time. I realize this must be taxing for you as well...Twerges (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you take Discover, to the Reliable source noticeboard? If so, I must have missed it. By the way, any editor can issue warnings. the only thing you cannot do is block on their basis, but the warnings serve to alert admins that there has been some prior problems. Use very cautiously, because its a likely way to escalate & we have a nicely Procrustean solution when it does, which is to block everyone in sight equally, regardless of the merits.

& I can give one piece of general advice that helps me deal with problems here: after I've posted once on something, and someone has replied, I'll post once more--and then I stop. If it needs more, I continue the next day. a problem with any web based instant reply system like Wikipedia, is that it's too easy to go back and forth impersonally & it gets worse and worse. So, following my own advice, I'll email you tomorrow. :)

DGG (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:UsaSatsui/Save Toby

Would you do me a favor? Take a look at this and let me know if you think it's OK for re-inclusion. I'm not done, I'm going to finish up the sourcing later (I can source everything that I didn't hit with a fact tag), but I wanted to see if what I have in there now is good enough. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC) See yor talk p. DGG (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry to bug you

Sorry to bug you DGG but have you seen the soapbox Skoojal has put up on his user page. Looks like he's admitted to trying to violate BLP. It seems he's also using it to attack Kukini. I've left a note at WP:BLPN about this as well--Cailil ^talk 01:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, this guy has been trolling Talk:Michel Foucault for months and has been engaged in a povpush about the use of the words "gay" and "queer" on wikipedia (see his behaviour in his nomination of Category:queer studies for deletion)--Cailil ^talk 02:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

you need to notify him of the BLP discussion. And I have emailed you. DGG (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me correct you on a point of fact, Cailil: I did not admit to 'trying to violate BLP.' Those are your words, not mine. I never said such a thing. As for 'attacking Kukini', I do not consider what I wrote an 'attack.' It is simply a critical observation about his behavior. I am not aware of a wikipedia policy stating that administrators are above criticism. As I explain on my user page, either he or Shell Kinney must have been in error in regards to how they edited the article on Frederick Crews, because their decisions were not consistent with each other.

And the Foucault business is a totally different issue, an irrelevant one. I haven't made a post to the Foucault talk page for a long while. Skoojal (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

in case anyone looks at this, since the matter is rather on the long side, the phrases being referred to with respect to BLP are apparently "I am a wikipedian with an agenda, and I'm happy to tell anyone what that agenda is." followed by "just how critical could I be of Crews before someone decided that I had gone too far" and finally " I decided to use Wikipedia to express my disgust with Crews" DGG (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've gone through Frederick Crews quickly and performed a removal of some coat-racked quotes and a couple of BLP violating criticisms. I've also warned Skoojal for the addition of defamatory material at {{blp1}} - this level because he knew what he was doing. If you think it's too harsh please go ahead and review/reduce/remove it--Cailil ^talk 19:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• This needs attention - I am almost absolutely sure this needs to removed. Can you confirm?--Cailil ^talk 23:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

responded on his user talk page. Yes you were right to remove the material. DGG (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look at this. Maybe after nearly 2 years I throw my understanding of WP:CONSENSUS in the recycling bin? Also Skoojal's active on 3 other philosophers' biographies Lacan, Gilles Deleuze and Slavoj Žižek. Have a look at the talk pages. Same issues, same problems. He's also edited a significant number of biographies in the last 48 hours. Interesting is how many of these discussions are about adding criticism of one type or another--Cailil ^talk 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I made some comments for some but not all. You know, don't rule out the possibility that he can sometimes be right :) DGG (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think there might be a good wikipedian in there I just hope he'll get to grips with why other people disagree with him sometimes--Cailil ^talk 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I know the rules of the road here. But I don't imagine you are very civil with adults who deface library books, are you? You will notice earlier exchanges with him were more civil. In any case, even when I was blasting him, I was being sincere about the increased use of citations in the article due to him. Even dirt can polish. 271828182 (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

that last sentence shows the problem exactly. One does not have to use rude words to be impolite. And even when someone commits vandalism, here or in the library, one politely shows them the door. DGG (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. "Dirt" was too harsh; "irritating grit" would have been more accurate. 271828182 (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make comments like this about me, which are a breach of civility, then please make them to me directly in future. I have been aware of this exchange for some time, but only recently decided that I shouldn't let it pass wthiout comment. Skoojal (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

librarian needed! ;)

Hiya. I wonder if you'd take a look here, where there's a discussion about how to determine a book's date of publication. It's the most trivial discussion imaginable, in some ways, and perfectly amiable, but I thought a librarian's input would be of interest. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Delighted to have something interesting to do on a Sunday. DGG (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Demob (band)

Sorry to bother you with this, but I would be grateful if you could spare a moment to take a look at the deletion of this article. I spent quite a bit of time improving this article, which was subsequently subject to some COI edits by one or more former members of the band, but nothing that couldn't be coped with by reverting. The article was deleted by User:JzG on 4 April, while I was taking a break from WP, but I can't see any evidence of the deletion procedures being followed. I have raised this in JzG's talk page but he doesn't appear to be around on WP at the moment. I was tempted to raise this at deletion review, but there does not appear to have been a deletion 'process' to review. If there's a valid reason why this was deleted, I'll accept that, but if it was just deleted because it has been subject to vandalism or COI edits, I don't see that as a valid reason. Thanks in advance. --Michig (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted with the following reason: "Marginally notable, locus of an edit war since day 1, subject of external legal action over rights to the name, dispute brought here. Wikipedia is not the place for this dispute." The deletion process followed in this was Speedy Deletion, even though it does not explicitly say so in the deletion summary. I do not see that this corresponds to any of the acceptable reasons for speedy deletion listed at WP:CSD, so deletion review would certainly be appropriate. DGG (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've taken it to deletion review. I find it worrying that admins can speedy established articles without apparently any discussion and without informing editors who have worked on the article.--Michig (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLAG-PROF and WP:FLAG-BIO

Hello again, DGG ...

I have trimmed WP:FLAG-PROF, and pointed to WP:FLAG-BIO as the "One True Copy" of the verbosity ... I plan to prune the others (WP:FLAG-FICT, WP:FLAG-INC, etc.), but thought I'd get some feedback first ... WP:FLAG-BIO also has the {{Articleissues}} boilerplate and a few others (like CATs), and I really don't want to duplicate all of that ... I'm trying to make the WP:FLAG-xyz protocols the "bare bones" copy&paste stencils, with the "elaborations" restricted to WP:FLAG-BIO as the "starting place" for most users ... feedback, please. :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)}

P.S.: Krocodylus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has made me question the need for a WP:FLAG-MOVIES (see discussion page :-) —72.75.78.69 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

feedback coming tomorrow. DGG (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Kewl! I've updated & rearranged Template:Flag-templates to show the "unimplemented" protocols in RED, indicating that they have not been created yet, and put WP:FLAG-BIO as the first one in the table, since it has the verbiage that I'm pruning from all the others ... I also added {{Prod}} to the table for the Guidelines that are not eligible for WP:CSD#A7. —72.75.78.69 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started rewording the main one. But db-a7 cannot be used for schools, so remove that from the table--they need prod. You also need to separate out the three different possibilities of no assertion of notability, no references to prove notability, and spam. Additionally, the term vanity is very strongly depreciated---people find it insulting. DGG (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, I entered IT in the 70s, and embraced "egoless programming" ... I'm pretty laid-back about changes, and have no illusions that I "own" these templates or protocols, so any changes to "soften" or bring them more in line with WP:CONSENSUS is fine by me ... I suggest that you use WP:PROF as the "master", and I'll replicate the changes. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{16:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)}

I also learned programming that way--and I too use it as the model for here--it is the only practical way for large scale projects like this. DGG (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've modified {{Flag-templates}} to replace the {{db}} with N/A for the ineligible ones ... more pre-epiphany thinking, I guess. :-) — 72.75.78.69 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Boston University Pub: Please don't delete!

DDG, I am so thankful that you stumbled across my submission... and thought it worthy of deletion! Please help me to improve my additions to Wiki, and to make that article a worthwhile piece. The Pub itself is an establishment beloved by many of the BU community's members. Wiki, and its free-share encyclopedia livelihood, is one of few places where the Pub's long history as an important university space can be recorded! Your suggestions are welcomed with open arms... just please be patient and don't delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Becs6452 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

see your talk page for the best suggestion I can make; I'll give you a chance before I nominate it for deletion--and then it's not up to me. I have been wrong before about what gets kept after I've nominated for deletion, but I doubt if I'll be wrong this time. DGG (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've added an {{Oldprodfull}} tag to the discussion page for Boston University Pub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to document that the WP:PROD was contested ... this is one that I would have seconded, BTW ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)}

CDS Global page update, 27 May 2008

The latest version of the CDS Global page includes information regarding "volume of business" and "market share," with external references. Please examine and provide comment. Thanks again for your input. Donny Scott (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Herndon article

Haha...yeah I was preparing to do that since yesterday anyway:-P. I'll go ahead and tag it for expert/other contributions. I just couldn't stand looking at that soapbox any longer...Always good to hear from you:-). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey...the soapbox is back at J. Marvin Herndon. I smell an edit war if I go and revert it now. Got a take on the subject? Thanks. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Thanks for your opinion, but I have no interest in deleting those articles. You should probably post to judge's page, since he's the one who nominated a few for speedy deletion. I was discussing with him the possibility of saving a few of the other articles. Randomran (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

oops, yes, my mixup. Sorry. DGG (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck and good editing. Randomran (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fearnhill School

OK, as suggested the sources are now in the page and I have started its expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Doe Camp

Hi, I was told you were a good friendly guy who could help me out. I am trying to save the article Big Doe Camp from deletion. It was deleted once and I was told that if I could find some sources than it would be ok. So I founded sources and rewrote a much longer article after unsuccessfuly trying to get a copy of the original article to work on. I uploaded the second article which I went through the list of criteria for speedy deletion with and thought in my mind that it should pass all the criteria. The article has a lot more information than other articles about summer camps. As as refernces showing importance, significance and notability as camp information and memorabilia has been preserved in a museum, the Trent University Archives, As well as an old article in the Toronto Star. I was hoping you could take a look at the article and tell me what you think it needs, if you think it is good enough if you could undelete that would be great. Otherwise if you could send me a copy of the two articles that were deleted so that I could combine the info from each of them and try and improve the article further. Hopefully when all is said and done I will have an article that will not be deleted when I attempt again to create it. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. --Magnetawan (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll email you the articles, but you first need to go to your preferences page and activate your email. As for the article, I'm not sure it met the speedy criterion for immediate deletion, but if it went to AfD it would be certainly be deleted very quickly. There are very few articles on summer camps that pass AfD. The problem is that it needs to show the camp is notable, as proven by substantial 3rd party independent reliable published sources. Merely finding evidence of its existence is primary sources like archives, or a mention in a newspaper, is not enough. The sort of thing that shows notability for a camp is some evidence of national or even international significance, or participation in major events that get substantial newspaper coverage, or athletic or other championships on at least a provincial scale, or some very distinguished former campers where the camp can be shown to have some relevance to their career, or the historic nature of the camp and its discussion in appropriate article or books (as with the sources for Camp Pathfinder). I've supported some possibly relevant articles on summer camps here from time to time, and they all of them have gotten deleted by the consensus. Secondary schools can be supported on the basis of their influence on the community and the alumni. Camps simply are not generally accepted for that. Perhaps they ought to be, but I am not prepared to try it as a general argument, because I think it is much too unlikely to succeed. Hint, though: all members of the provincial legislature that there ever were can have articles here; at present, only the current ones do. If you can find a large number who went to the camp, you could possibly build the article around it, if you do the articles on them first. I don't know if it would work, but it would be worth the try. DGG (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your tips and advice. I have updated my e-mail preferences to allow e-mail. I see some of your points, and finding international and national competitions and such will be difficult. I know most of the articles about camps on Wikipedia do not have any of this, I also believe this articles has a lot more information that many camps on wikipedia. I guess it just depends on which administrator sees the article first and approves of it or marks it for deletion. Thanks again for your help! --Magnetawan (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it depends ultimately of what the result is at AfD and Deletion Review, which can and do over-rule any admin's individual decision. It's probably true though, that some of the existing articles would have a hard time there. If you can find anything more for this one, put the article in user space & I'll take a look. I emailed the versions to you just now. DGG (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

References added to CDS Global

References have been added to verify the acquisition section, including an article from The New York Times. Let me know if I should not be posting to this talk page as well — I'm still pretty new to the Wikipedia community! =) Donny Scott (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

you've said enough, unless the article does get challenged for AfD. If so, you'll be asked whether the NYT coverage is substantial. It is possible the trade press might have something also; a lot of it is still not electronic, or wasnt until just recently. DGG (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG. I appreciate your insight and time given to help with article improvements. Donny Scott (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

J.M. Hayes

There was absolutely no assertion of notability. I'm an author; non-self-published. Do I get an article? No. Nothing in this article gives him any qualifications per WP:CREATIVE. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:CSD#A7 is that there need only be a reasonable assertion of notability. I did not see that in the above article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

that someone has published four books is cause to think that person might reasonably be notable. Speedy is not AfD. As the article would almost certainly fail afd, I'm not going to take it to deletion review, unless i find some references. But I am going to discuss this at WT:CSD. If you are misinterpreting the meaning this way, it is time to change the language. I've moved it to User:DGG/Hayes for the purpose of discussion. DGG (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How is publishing four books cause to infer notability? Multiple publications is a direct assertion of notability? I really would like to see that opinion here on Wikipedia; if it's here, I'll change my interpretation of WP:CREATIVE. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Found two reviews for Plains Crazy mentioned at Amazon.com: one form Publishers Weekly and one from Booklist. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that makes him quite possibly actually notable, thanks. They are both selective. OK to restore to mainspace? Thanks for you cooperation. DGG (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Selective"? Yeah, go ahead; but we need to include an assertion of notability vis a vie reputable reviewed works" or something that makes another CSD tagging much less valid. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

of course I'll add an explanation, but I did start a discussion at WT:CSD--for this is a poster boy of an indication of why we need less restrictive language. Nothing should be speedied that might be keepable--at least that's what I think. I seriously do appreciate your help. DGG (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Google scholar

Jens Elmegård Rasmussen gets this on Google Scholar. I don't know how to weigh "scholar hits". In your opinion, how does this effect WP:PROF? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

He is Associate Professor of Indo-European Studies at Copenhagen. Given the small number of publication with few cites, how do we evaluate him against other specialists in that particular subject? If we consider his speciality to be Tocharian, it's the sort of example that might seem to indicate he absurdity of the "importance in the filed" when pressed to the limit,. His most cited work in GS has 20 citations & we could compare it with other work in the subject. But we really need to do is to use the right database; since citations to an 1989 German book on this subject would not necessarily be expected in GS, GS is worthless here except for this very preliminary look--the most cited item there on Tocharian only has 20 citations to it, & its a dictionary. WoS & Scopus don't cover this subject adequately; we need Linguistics Abstracts Online, but it isn't working for me just now. He is editor in chief of a journal, which is his strongest claim to notability. We need to check whether it's the leading journal in the field. It is the only journal in worldcat on the subject of Tocharian. But it's in few libraries, and the subject might be covered better in somewhat more general journals. Personally, I'm prepared to deal with this like we do athletic teams: people with tenure in major universities are notable, in which case he is; or one could hold out for full professor, in which case he isn't. I am aware that people here are trying to enter all the linguists in Denmark, or so it seems--but perhaps the solution is to decide to be equally comprehensive everywhere else. It's like the disproportionate number of football players from Brazil--do we cut back on them, or expand the other countries and the other sports? DGG (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Most troubling about WP:PROF is that it looks like it requires a prof to decipher the applicability of its notability standard. The average Wikipedian contributing to afd's would have no idea how to frame a given profs speciality and then how to compare it to other scholars in that field. Although comparing it to athletes is a good idea, in reality it proves far more difficult. With most athletics you have a starting point - whether the person in a professional in the top league in any country. However, for profs, the average Wikipedian doesn't know where even to begin the analysis. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

go to a good library school & we'll teach you how to decipher citation analysis and all sorts of curious but useful things. My original motivation for it was exactly to figure out these sort of mysteries. But how to work with esoteric subjects in the humanities will be in the advanced part of the program. FWIW, I found this the most difficult & interesting question of the week so far. (smile) DGG (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(different subject) I've had past experiences with nobility hoaxes, and I suspect another one is afoot. This new user, Dlkeller999 (talk · contribs), has just created a few nobility articles and they smell fishy. Would you be able to verify that the source provided by this editor backs up the article content?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

there is support at least for the Clifford article. & possibly for the others. They probably are in fact sourced to the book indicated, but that does not necessarily prove that it is correct. It is a genealogical work, not a historical one, but widely held in libraries. The position of sheriff is notable, if there is actual historical evidence. De la See, to my surprise, does have a genuine reference, though not one with a very high degree of confidence. I may nominate one of them for lack of notability, but it would need to go to AfD. It sounds to me like uncritical amateurism, not fraud. But that's the state of most of the historical articles here. DGG (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Superiority Complex?

Instead of going around Wp tagging pages as "may be not notable" in some sort of superior way, why not put some effort in and improve the articles yourself? Albatross2147 (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

there are 2000 articles a day submitted to Wikipedia. About 1/2 are totally unacceptable. Of the other 1/2, probably about 200 need major improvements. I try to fix up one or two a day. "may not be notable" means that someone has some reason to doubt it. I will add such a tag if , for example, another editor has placed a tag for deletion as hopelessly non-notable, and I don't think its quite as bad as that. But what article or discussion are you referring to--we usually don't work in the same areas, so I'm a little puzzled? DGG (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sales Catalog

If you permits I would like to ask you for a advice of other article: Internet in Moldova. There are a list of prices there, and the author in my talk page explains his behavior. I've composed a template: {{salecatalog}} for pages like this. What can you suggest on this topic? --serhio ^talk 12:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your contributions. --serhio ^talk 22:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

as for the template, I think it will be very useful. My only comment is that I think "sales catalog" would be a more usual wording.DGG (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

oops, unfortunately, I'm not an English man. Fixed ;) --serhio ^talk 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks plus some questions

Dear DGB, thanks for your advice added on my talk page.

For your information, I do precise that I am allowed to edit some articles. It's just what I did by adding some biliographical references to the Maryse Marpsat page that I have created a month ago. But I am not allowed to write the web-link leading to the OECD Wikigender site. This site is only an information sharing platform on gender equity which was officially launched by the OECD Development Centre on 7 March 2008 on the occasion of International Women's Day. If you are sufficiently curious, you can get its web-link in my contribution page (at the date of 11 march 2008), and if you follow it, you would observe that it is difficult to say that this information is a kind of SPAM.

It's one of the reasons justifying my protest. Now, I would like to know whether I'm "definitely blocked" or not. Mr or Mrs Hu12 don't give me any answer, neither to my protest nor to your comment. What can I do? How to get any answer? Wanda007 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. You are not blocked. The link is blocked, I think quite wrongly, as an example of what I call "spam paranoia" DGG (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Does "spam paranoia" include abuse of Wikipedia's electronic messaging system? Additionaly French administrator (fr:Utilisateur:Like_tears_in_rain) even posted on her french talk page "Your additions of external links were not a good idea. While I understand that you want to publicize the site, the only place on a relevant page would suffice, making it five times gives the impression of spam.". --Hu12 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to know, I emailed the ed. in question to ask point-blank what I do not like to ask openly on Wikipedia, whether the person had used other accounts. I consider this a highly appropriate question, and I always ask this before getting involved in helping someone in a situation like this--if they have in fact used other accounts deliberately, I am very reluctant to defend them. Questions regarding possible sock puppetry are often inquired about confidentially. For the record, it was denied (I do not think I am breaking confidentiality in saying this) and I am prepared to help the user further to edit within the rule and to put in links appropriately.

As for the links, I think they were added in good faith. I agree they were added over-enthusiastically. I have not examined that site in detail about appropriateness. Obviously there can be different opinions on that. I take the French admin's opinion seriously. You and I have disagreed about this sort of thing several times. The community has often supported me. If they think the links are wrong this time, then they will not be added. I have been wrong about various things before, and I have sometimes been in the situation where the community does not agree with what i continue to think the right view. In such cases I do what I have always done, which is follow the community in what I actually do. There are some rules I think wrong, that I enforce nonetheless, and there are some things I think should be prohibited that aren't, and I don't try to act against people doing them.

I agree with our linking policy, but I think the enforcement is sometimes over-harsh, both with respect to the links and the individuals. Too many usable links are on the spam blacklist and if one of them catches my attention, I sometimes try to do something about it if I think I will have support, though I do not have time to do as much of this as I would like. I spend more time removing them; about 200 of my watched pages are for possible spam, and yesterday I removed about a dozen links of that sort. I also blocked someone earlier this week for persistently adding unsuitable links, but that was after multiple warnings. DGG (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Kind of hate to say this, but...

There's a question at Talk:Lynn_Conway#Resolving_May.2C_2008_edit_war about whether Archives of Sexual Behavior is a reliable source.

The article's locked down again. The issues are polarizing. The editors are fighting again. I can't imagine why anyone would volunteer for this. But -- if you don't have enough stress in your life yet, you're the obvious editor for making a statement about the reputation of an academic journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the highest ranking sexuality journal in the world. I elaborated with documentation on the article talk page & mentioned it at the mediation. DGG (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sara Goldrick-Rab

Hello, In your comment on the discussion page for this article, you say that you'll re-nom for AfD. Has this dropped off your radar, or does the article now meet your criteria. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

at this point, I want to look myself for her papers and the citations to them. Nobody has fixed up the article, so I'll see if I can do it before I renominate for AfD. I frequently say people should do that first before nominating, so I think I will try to follow my own advice. DGG (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Flagged articles

Hello again ...

Would you please take a look at User talk:Matthewedwards#Category:Flagged articles, and then add your comments on the cats I have created to compliment the templates?

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)}

Category:Flagged editors

Hello again ... {{Flag-editor}} now has an optional assist parameter that makes a friendly offer to help, for those thus inclined, instead of defaulting with making the offer. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

getting there! I'll check the details later. Next goal, perhaps: making it shorter while still making it friendly. and maybe copyvio should be different --if it's clear it should be db-copyvio, if not, suspected copyvio already has the template "copypaste". DGG (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I realized that, but the point is, "I don't have time to check right now, but it's suspicious, so I'll flag it with this generic tag" ... maybe Some Other Editor will check it out in the mean time, and decide that it's {{Db-copyvio}}-able. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, Liliam Cuenca González (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was part of a WP:COI/N and WP:COPYVIO that led to a site being blocked and removed by a bot as WP:LINKSPAM ... it's all the sins in one (unfortunately repeated) case, but it certainly can be improved if editors are aware of the situation ... hence Category:Flagged articles. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Current project

Your third suggestion: I like. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. As this is out of the blue, I am referring to the section on your userpage. "A good faith request by any established editor is sufficient for any administrator, whether or not the deleting administrator, to undelete an article deleted under speedy, except for BLP and copyvio. This should be automatic, and need not involve Deletion Review. it is polite to ask the original administrator first, but not necessary, and, even if s/he refuses, any administrator can undelete it without it being considered wheel warring. The article would normally be immediately sent for AfD. By definition, if an established editor disagrees, it is not uncontroversial and needs community involvement. "

Yes, that's the one. I think it would actually save a lot of drama and free up some wasted time for creators, onlookers & DRV contributors. It might increase the load at AfD, but I'm inclined to think not that much. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MOS

Thanks, I appreciate the support. I figured there'd be some tweaking if FICT or NOT are changed dramatically (though, it does not appear that there are going to be any major changes, but possibly some minor rewording). I already have one complaint about the images, but my stand is change WP:FURG first to be more specific about posters and like in the infobox before we go making a single MOS guideline contradict numerous others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

actually, it's so good it's a model for the others. Clarity is better than precision around here, and clarity for keep it it from being absurd is better than a difficult fight to get an ambiguous wording that could be interpreted just as I want. while everyone else tries just the same in their respective directions. I think this process has been an example of consensus through mutual exhaustion.DGG (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Young Scientist Journal

David, I am not sure about the notability criteria for journals (can you provide me with a link to a policy perhaps), but Canadian Young Scientist Journal may not meet it (yet). Only 1 issue published with 3 articles, although I very much sympathize with their goals, may not be enough to establish viability (and notability). Wim --Crusio (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult enough to show the notability of college undergraduate journals; this is a high school journal. However, it seems to be sponsored in some manner by National Research Council of Canada Press, which means a lot, and there is one media reference. I'm going to ask them about the details of the sponsorship. DGG (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lectures

Hiya David, I see you were scheduled to give a lecture on sourcing in mid-May...did you give the lecture, and is there a "transcript" somewhere, or perhaps you've done an essay on the topic? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it has been transcribed yet, but the outline is at User:DGG/LR DGG (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Archives of Sexual Behavior, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. I know you're not a newbie, but maybe this reminder will be useful to you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was the removal of unsourced/poorly sourced BLP, which you had added 3 times already.DGG (talk)

Amusing

From TNR: "The fact that Schilling is married to a librarian who, he laments, "never recommends anybody use Wikipedia" (no one, no one, hates Wikipedia as much as librarians) does not diminish his vigilance." --Relata refero (disp.) 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed regarding my right or lack of it to edit the article on Frederick Crews

DGG, you recently gave me a BLP warning concerning the article on Frederick Crews. As I understood it, this warning meant that I must not add defamatory material to the article. However, it apparently did not amount to a total ban on making changes of any kind, such as, say, spelling corrections or adding the date of a book's publication to the bibliography. Shell Kinney's remarks also appeared to concern defamatory material, and did not look like a total ban on any sort of editing. In fact her comment, 'If you are unsure if something violates this policy, please ask first because any further violations will garner sanctions', could be understood to mean that minor, non-defamatory changes were acceptable.

More recently, I asked Shell Kinney whether it would be acceptable to make a couple of minor changes and was informed that it was not, and that in fact I was not welcome to edit the article in any way ever again. Whether this meant that I would be blocked for, for instance, correcting spelling, was not made clear. I am asking for clarification on this matter. Surely if a total ban on my editing this article had been imposed, I should have been informed of this at the time to prevent any possible misunderstanding? Skoojal (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think you would do extremely well to permanently avoid editing this article. Your feelings about him are not compatible with NPOV editing. There are very few people who can edit properly the article about anyone for whom they can say that their primary objective is to discredit him. I notice from your now deleted talk page that such also applies to several other topics. [26]. SK made a comment that I would endorse: WP is "just not... an appropriate place to vent your feelings". This applies to everyone and everything, and I think you'd yourself apply it to other people and other topics. You are a valuable editor--we are trying to ensure that you are able to stay here. Let other handle this and related articles. There's a great deal of work to be done in building up Wikipedia about the unrelated topics you also work on. DGG (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Spiders

Responded here. Shyamal (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

H.O.P.E. speech

Hey, DGG. This is volt4ire from the NYC meetup. Pharos mentioned that you would be a good person to help (or at least steer me in the right direction) in doing a pro-inclusionist speech. Any suggestions for speakers, arguments, debating-points, etc.? Thanks! volt4ire 02:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

do you think they will want to hear about specific details at Wikipedia? rather, I would aim it at the general roles of web 2.0 information sources, then specialize it to encyclopedias, then us, then to specific problems if people want to hear about them. DGG (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think volt4ire's original idea was for some sort of inclusionist vs. deletionist "debate", and I had recommended you an an inclusionist (I couldn't think of a New York-area deletionist at that moment). Which is an interesting idea, because of all the inside baseball at Wikipedia, the notability issue seems to attract the most outside interest (several articles in Slate, for example).

Which is not to say that this is necessarily what we should do. But I do imagine at a conference like H.O.P.E., we should avoid basic explanations of web 2.0, and focus somewhat more on the issues that are particular to us.--Pharos (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, see Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC#H.O.P.E. Conference panel (maybe we should shift this conversation there).--Pharos (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Wikimedia NYC Board Member!

And now, for the hard part ;) Our process, as it goes forward from here, is laid out at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Chapter formation. I've written a draft Wikimedia New York City Bylaws at meta, and I would invite you to please comment on it, and make suggestions (see also a couple of possible future Resolutions). This is a critical stage of our approval process, when we must achieve a consensus among ourselves over bylaws, and work with the Chapters Committee to have them accepted. Thanks for your help!--Pharos (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Internet Journal of Medical Update

Sorry to disturb you again but since it's your area of expertice (I think?) - is this journal likely to have recieved the kind of coverage from which it would be possible to write an encyclopaedia article? Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a little, and will check some more. The main justification for keeping it would be avoiding systematic bias--it is probably the main medical journal of its country. DGG (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Clue check

Would you please look over Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Resolution and leave a message with your thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

very well done. Are you by any chance interested in running for arbcom? DGG (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that I'd be a good candidate for ArbCom, but thanks for the implied compliment nonetheless. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made a report at WP:ANI regarding user:Dicklyon.

Dicklyon appears to have withdrawn from the mediation page; at least, he has ceased participating despite that he is continuing to make edits for the past three days at Archives of Sexual Behavior and other pages that the edit war has leaked onto. Because of that, in additional to a substantial history of what I believe are harassing behaviors, I have made an entry at WP:ANI. I understand that I am expected to notify all others who were involved in the dispute.

The entry at WP:ANI here.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It seemed appropriate to notify you of Dicklyon's report that my editing violates COI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MarionTheLibrarian.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Primal Scream

Would you mind explaining your recent edit to The Primal Scream? Skoojal (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

see the talk page there. and your own talk page also. going page by page through each chapter of the book is unreasonable and excessive detail;--and you're still only in chapter 5. DGG (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are detailed articles on other books. I will restore the material you just deleted unless you direct me to relevant policies showing that it is inappropriate. That The Primal Scream is unimportant is an insufficient and mistaken grounds for removing the material. Skoojal (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

there are not such sections on other books of this sort. I never said it was unimportant, but rather that it was of not such great importance as to justify this kind of treatment. Why not try for a more moderate expansion instead? I am not going to edit war with you, but I do intend to pursue this by seeing what others think.. DGG (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in full concurrence with your actions on this. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, why? Skoojal (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Of Mice and Men in popular culture

In 45 minutes, I've found many, many cites - from blogs to NYT. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I cant be the one to close it, I already !voted. 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Hi DGG, thanks for the note re those two deleted articles. If you want to restore them I have no objections. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

CSD songs

My apologies, i was unaware of that policy aspect. My thinking went "non-notable people=csd, non notable companies=csd, non-notable bands=csd, non-notable songs=...". Ironholds 22:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Hello DGG! How are you? DGG, I want your views on something. It is related to original research. I don't think it will be appropriate to discuss it on-wiki. Can I send you an email? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

use the link on my talk page, "email this user"DGG (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

0RR??!?!

Just when I thought you weren't going to let things go, you have to make a suggestion like that. I know for your work you rarely need to revert, but I use revert so much that imposing this restriction will essentially end my ability to do anything at Wikipedia. I do wish you would stop butting into this conversation. It makes the whole thing much worse every time you say anything. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

once again I was discussing everyone & did not mention your name. You need not feel that defending the cause of science at Wikipedia is up to you alone, and that if you do not revert then nobody will. The actual work you do best, in my opinion, is writing clear analyses of the status of the science--we really need you for that. DGG (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to write clear analyses, but being banned from reverting when there are so few editors who actually effectively monitor pseudoscience pages (judging from their quality) is like killing a person to prevent someone else from murdering them. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I must admit you have me at a disadvantage here, for I do not want to do such work myself. But I think a closer analogy to what you have in mind is to do cosmetic surgery on someone who is about to be murdered. More seriously, I hope the rather general notice this is getting publicity will attract other users--that would be at least some benefit out of it all. DGG (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick Opinion

Hello David can you take a quick look at this article [27] and give your opinion on reposting at this point? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

see its talk page. DGG (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate the input. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hello DGG. I have send you an email. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Tenure committee"

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Mawhinney: You know, I was thinking the same thing when looking at another article and considering whether the subject passed WP:PROF. I find myself sounding more and more like my old college profs — "You need more source material!" "That's not a reliable source!" I suppose that's what we should be doing if we're putting together an encyclopedia. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added Mawhinney's publications to her article - would you care to re-review the page for reconsideration? Thanks. Rotund, but sweet (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, 3 articles total in 2 years does not make for significance in the academic world in any subject. Does not mean she may not eventually become notable. DGG (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I apologize if this question comes across as rude or insulting, because I sincerely don't mean it to be. But I have to ask: are you familiar with the purpose and concepts behind disambiguation pages? Have you ever reviewed WP:Disambiguation? I ask because you seem to make a habit of de-prodding disambig pages that don't actually meet that purpose; I'm assuming you find them listed on the page logging all prods. (The two that I've run into you while editing recently are Prague Declaration and Princess Blanche, but I have vague feelings that we've conflicted before on the issue, although I may be wrong.)

I did notice that you removed the disambig-cleanup template from Prague Declaration after saying you thought the page was fine as it was; does that mean you don't think it is a disambiguation page? (I don't think it is, either, because there aren't any articles to disambiguate, but I also don't think it's a legitimate article.) The template had been there since April. Propaniac (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see I was not really clear. I meant its not a classic disambiguation page, because it does not link to articles, and I think you agree about that. It does serve that purpose adequately well in informing the person who looks for the term about the likely contexts. But you are right, it needs improvement, and I was quite wrong in saying it was fine as it is. Possibly it can be turned into a proper disambiguation page by linking to the appropriate sections of articles I'm not happy with calling it list of... since that's not really a likely search term, but this can and should be discussed at the article talk page if you want to do it. If its your field of interest, it isn't mine particularly, why not improve it. As for the guideline, see the paragraphs 3.1.4 and 3.1.6.

I was working on the principle that deletion is the last resort, and if you were suggesting a name change that should be discussed before a prod is placed. I do that for all sorts of articles of all types in patrolling prods--if something other than deletion is suggested, they do not belong there. I don't particular watch for disam pages.

As for Princess Blanche, as I recall the problem was figuring out what it referred to, and I think you ended up seeing it more clearly than I. DGG (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Social Science Research Resources Network

Restored. Go to work on it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Help at the Lynn Conway Mediation

Your assistance is most appreciated!

		The Mediation Barnstar
		I, BrownHornet21, do hereby bestow upon DGG this Mediation Barnstar for displaying exemplary courtesy and patience, and being of great assistance in the Lynn Conway Mediation. BrownHornet21 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, BrownHornet21 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have beem recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi. I've replied to you here, on ANI. Bishonen | talk 08:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

Ottava Rima

DGG, I agree with you that it was a content dispute, but Ottava has shown no indication of dropping the issue, and if you look at his talk page here you can see that all he is doing is changing what the problem is. It started out as a membership item dealing with what John Rose said in his article prior to his analysis of the poem's Masonic symbolism (Ottava claimed Rose said he was a Mason, and Rose did not say that). That was after bringing it up on here on the article talk where Ottava blatantly shows he is interpreting sources ("Rose is mocking those who say Smart is not a Mason"). By the end of it, all of a sudden we're "discussing the poem" after meandering through other material that was no more relevant to the initial statement either because Ottava was intentionally misconstruing statements I was making in order to try to make me look foolish, never mind statements about RS for sources he's never seen. I finally bowed out of the conversation, and he tried to bait me back into it by the subtopic he started, which is full of nitpicking based on "things MSJ got wrong" (because Ottava presented them incorrectly in the first place).

All of this indicates to me that this entire process is being done with intent to cause a problem unless Ottava is right and everyone else is wrong. He has the same incorrect information in multiple articles, and he is simply going to go and keep changing it back despite everyone else telling him there are problems. so this is really a question of editing behavior at this point, not content - the content disputes on the project, the article, and the user's talk page are all instances of the greater methodological problem. I would suggest you do not unblock him unless a topic ban is instituted until the problem is rectified. MSJapan (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, I noticed that things were getting rather far afield. DGG (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava and I are in the process of hammering out a compromise ATM. MSJapan (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. let me know when you are both ready, and I will unprotect the page. DGG (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of conference companies

Hello again, DGG ...

Well, {{Oldprodfull}} seems to be working out well ... I patrol Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed and add the empty boilerplate, then fill it in ... this manual tedium may lead me to write my first Wiki-bot. :-)

On a related note, Some Other Editors appear to have embraced the Flag templates for deletion warnings as witness the size of Category:Flagged articles and Category:Flagged editors ... I manually examine them once a week and remove the Cat from articles that have shown improvement ... cleaning up the "editors" is a bit more labor intensive, though.

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{17:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)}

I apologize for not having had the chance to follow up on this yet. DGG (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh!> I guess adding it to Talk:CAMICO Mutual Insurance is something that a bot should do when a PROD is contested, but it's no big whoop to do it manually ... it's an outlet for my OCD. :-) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to mention this--The prod should not have been applied at the same time as the request for improvement. The tag says : I am considering listing for deletion..." not "I am asking for deletion." A prod should in my opinion only be used when there is actually reason to think that there are no sources available, such as at least a preliminary search, or something really unlikely. DGG (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! That wasn't tagged "at the same time" ... I flagged CAMICO Mutual Insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 2008-06-15, then put the PROD on a week later (2008-06-22) ... that's the whole point of the "wait and see" protocol ... and a Google search of "CAMICO Mutual Insurance" shows their Wikipedia article as the #3 returned link, with most of the material having been created/added by the Single-purpose account named Danlcrouch (talk · contribs), and very little else that could be considered WP:RS coverage ... look at Danlcrouch's Talk page and you'll see that Some Other Editor tried to speedy delete it on 2008-06-13, so it's not just my opinion. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the following considerations are relevant:

1. for a great many topics, Wikipedia will now be one of the first few links, and this should not be taken as an indication there are no other significant ones.
2. I do not really like nominating an article for deletion for lack of referenced notability by any process, unless there is evidence of a proper preliminary search for references--or unless it is unmistakably obvious that there won;t possibly be. Now this isn't of course required yet, though I think it certainly should be, but people do get very embarassed at afd when they omit this step, and proper references are quickly found by someone else. As it seems you had done one, it would have been well to say so--unless I missed that also. I would then know where to start.
   1. More generally, the obligation on everyone should be to fix articles if possible. Tagging without doing so is sometimes derogatively called "drive-by tagging", tho I do not use the term myself. It's proper to mark things for later attention, but better to fix articles or indicate exactly why you havent been able to do so. The excuse on the template "I haven't had time to look at it in detail" is a little inappropriate. You should be saying, I have looked in x Y and z, and have not found anything useful. I have not yet had time to look further.
3. COI is a problem, but most of our articles about people and company are probably written in part by people with COI. See Durova's excellent Business FAQ for a general discussion of this problem and how to avoid it. I just now recommended it to the author involved. I should have done so earlier.
4. I think intervals of one week are much too short--I did not think that was how you were planning to use the template. I'd advise a month between steps , at the least--remember how much easier it is to nominate for deletion than for fixing.
5. I think it likely they are the major niche company, but this can be difficult to prove. Finding sources for businesses such as these is quite difficult, especially for people like me (& most people here) who dont really know much about the world of commerce.

I go into this detail because I think this set of templates is a potentially very useful way to do things, but I regard them as still in the beta stage. I want to encourage you to continuing to experiment. I think it very important for templates not to encourage shortcuts with deletion. DGG (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I want to thank you for all of the productive feedback that you have provided over the past year in developing these templates and protocols ... in this particular case, it looked like a WP:SPA was pushing an NN company, and I flgged & tagged the article after a WP:CSD by Some Other Editor had been contested, and there had been no improvements between the date of the flag and the date of the PROD tag (instead of another CSD, which gave them another 5 days to improve it) ... I'm the first to admit that I'm more likely to clean up ELs with {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} templates than I am to look for references, which I feel is the author's responsibility ... when an author never returns after creating an article, it makes me suspicious about their agenda ... that's why the templates mention several possible concerns, including WP:COI ... and as my edit history shows, I do remove articles from Category:Flagged articles if they show improvement ... if they're deleted, then they evaporate from the Category ... I'll try waiting longer (you say a month, I say a week), and since the Category is now my Watchlist, I'll just have to pay closer attention to an article's History instead of relying on the color of the link (my browser is set to expire after 7 days.) — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyme Disease entry continually sabotaged and censored - can you help?

Dear DGG

I was told you might be able to help with the following problem, or suggest someone who can.

The Lyme Disease page is under almost constant attack from members of one scientific camp. Lyme medicine is split into two opposed camps, and certain individuals from what we call the Steere camp will not allow the two sets of viewpoints to be mentioned on Wikipedia. They ruthlessly remove everything but their own views.

In particular a user known as Retros1mone has been removing whole sections and also substituting false information, which could expose readers who may have Lyme disease to real danger if they believed the content he inserts.

There are also others, not registered with Wikipedia, and using anonymous IP addresses, who continually insert pornographic or nonsensical info into the article to put people off reading it. Parts of that article were authored by scientists doing cutting-edge research into this disease.

Because these saboteurs use a different anonymous IP each time, there is not much point reporting them using the normal procedure, as they will only switch to a different IP the next day.

If you know of anything that can be done, please let us know. I know that many thousands of Lyme patients will be grateful if this article can be kept accurate, and if all current factual and relevant information on this disease can continue to be made available, without fear of censorship or sabotage from a biased camp of doctors, who actually have a very poor record of patient satisfaction indeed.

Elena Cook Shine a lite (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC) .

You know, somehow I thought someone was going to ask me about this article. We have no way of keeping Wikipedia articles accurate in a scientific sense--all we can expect to do is to have them reflect accurately the scientific consensus or lack of it. In maintaining balance in an article, such has to be the basis of the argument, not patient satisfaction or danger--and there's nothing an admin can do more than any other editor. But attempts from anywhere to sabotage an article with irrelevant material, such as general discussions of biological warfare, --that is another matter, and I will take a look at what everyone had been contributing there, and everyone's possible COI--single purpose accounts as well as anons. In particular, most anon nonsense with an article is not a conspiracy against it, but random people making fools of themselves, and we can easily deal with that. DGG (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

in fact, I just did--it's been semi-protected for 2 weeks. My further work there will be as an editor not an admin. DGG (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear DGG,

Thanks very much for agreeing to help out.

I am not aware that there have been irrelevant "general discussions of biowarfare" in the article. There is a discussion of biowarfare ***as it realtes to Lyme*** , which I have contributed to myself. Most of the assertions in the section, which is listed under "Controversies", are supported by references that meet the criteria of WP's Reliable Source policy. This section is continually being removed, as well as many other sections, by the same user I mentioned above. He provides no scientific argument to justify its removal, just offesnive name-calling about "conspiracies" and "fantasies".

Elena Cook —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shine a lite (talk • contribs) 06:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

i do not agree with you. I went back over the diffs & the links, & I consider it a far fringe conspiracy theory without any reliable sources, & the qy of it including it has been discussed there sufficiently. To summarize my understanding of the situation, in your version, [28], not a single one of the refs are to the point, except your own radio interview, which is not a RS. General refs to BSL4 labs possibly or actually working on the disease are not relevant to the hypothesis. I'm not sure its worth even a mention unless there is something better. Someone other than you has to actually have said it in a RS, not just given facts from which you can speculate that it might have happened. The place to consider this is on its talk page. If you like, give the best full quote from a published source that discusses the hypothesis & I will respond there--If the book discusses it specifically, give a quote and page numbers; I am always ready to be convinced if i see direct evidence. But please dont feel you harmed your side of the argument by about asking me, for I was, as I said, already aware of the article. DGG (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

STEC, Inc.

Hi DGG. I reverted an IP edit adding a "News" section to this article. After it was added again, I took a more careful look at the article and it seems very promotional. I'm contacting you because I saw your name in the history in a case of speed delection. The company is notable but I think the article is "over" like it is now. More than 30 company links in the body; sections as "Notable Achievements", "Core Capabilities" and "Environmental Leadership"; no neutral references and a farm of external links, all of them to the company. I'd like to have your oppinion about what is realy usefull for an encyclopedia. Regards; Caiaffa (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

yep. I informed the i;p. contributor about our Business FAQ. I removed most of the advertising. I will go back and trim the notable achievements. Thing is, I think it really is a major OEM supplier, and, in its earlier incarnation, was very well known to the build-it-yourself computer market. As nobody owns an article, if people add spam to articles about their companies, we simply remove it. Since it's on NASDAQ, you'll probably be able to find one or two real references. As for the general question, a strong case could be made for including every company on the major stock exchanges, and I think that would extend to NASDAQ also--they have reasonable standards for listing. The real problem is there are too few people with an interest in working on these articles, so they are at the mercy of the PR guys. If you dont agree with me, try AfD. DGG (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon/Marion case at WP:COIN

Hello DGG. This case has recently shown up at the COI noticeboard. I'd be willing to suggest an *article ban* for the two participants if you thought that was a good plan. I noticed your comment in the ANI thread, where you seemed to be toying with that idea:

I've tried to work with the people here, and I have the impression that several of the parties involved on various sides have sufficiently strong POV that it inhibits neutral editing. The material on the journal that was reinserted was in part justified on the talk page, and was not contradicted there. In any case, the proposed limitation is absurdly wide--we do not make topic bans of this sort after this relatively mild sort of disruption. I thought of suggesting a one-month moratorium on all of the involved editors for the immediately involved topics--except that I'm sure the same would continue then. These articles need the active involvement of neutral editors--but I'm not sure any neutral editors are sufficiently interested to decipher the complexities. I know I am not. DGG (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You know the COI policy as well as anybody else, so do you have a suggestion for what conclusion the COI noticeboard ought to draw? I think an article ban might loosen up the situation enough that, when the debate eventually resumes, it might be on a better track. I won't support this idea unless you agree, though. If you think one month isn't useful, how about three months? The ban would be only from the articles, not the Talk pages. (If the participants would sincerely limit themselves to the mediation, and not edit any articles or post on any noticeboards until an agreement was reached, this whole fiasco wouldn't be necessary). EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

the reason I have not answered here yet is because i do not know what to do about the situation either. My personal feeling is that for everything except the computer aspects, neither editor should be working on this series of articles--and I gather from his comments elsewhere that dicklyon realistically intends to decrease his involvement accordingly. But this is the sort of topic where people who actually want to write about it tend to be people likely to get emotionally over-committed. So I dont see anyone neutral really prepared to work on it. DGG (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be entirely agreeable to leaving the related set of articles alone and to sticking to the mediation page. In mediation thus far, however, I have agreed to all the mediator's suggestions and Dicklyon has refused them all. If Dicklyon is permitted to continue editing in his usual areas of interest, what would the motivation be for him to do any different?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

we will not need the mediation if you & he both stop working on these articles. DGG (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can negotiate that with him, I will follow this suggestion from you too.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to avoid editing any sexology-related articles if TheLibrarian will. I still intend to work on the Lynn Conway bio when we unlock it; if we can just leave the sexology-related section to others, instead of adding the stuff that TheLibrarian wants to put there, that will be OK and we can move on; the paragraph in question already links the BBL controversy, and we can let others deal with that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about putting all of sexology off-limits; that's my main area of interest, and my edits outside the immediate issue have been stable and apparently well-received. I was thinking the bio pages related to the controversy: Bailey, Conway, James, and McCloskey, and TMWWBQ; we limit edits to their talk pages.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to make a list, can you at least add others on which I've had a problem with your COI? These: Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Autogynephilia
• Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
• Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (College St. Site)
• Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory
• Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy

and maybe since you're so close to the relevant controversies, also these:

• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
• Transsexualism
• Gender identity disorder
• Ray Blanchard

That way, if somewhat wants to undo some of what you've done there recently, they won't have to fight you for it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that to be meaningful, this will have to extend to all pages relating to the controversy, not just the bio ones, and to all insertions where these workers are considered or proposed to be an authority, and to insertion of references to their work in any article. (not that some of the insertions of these references is necessarily wrong, but they would have to be suggested on the talk pages and inserted after checking by some other editor. DGG (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

incidentally, Marion, I see we do have an overlap of interests, because I also try to source the articles of some of the paraphilias, tho typically from a literary/social, not psychological viewpoint. I don;'t see anything wrong with your additions, including from AnnSexB and the people mentioned, but it will save unnecessary trouble & possible unwarranted criticism for you if someone else looks at them also. DGG (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes more sense than trying to list the articles. Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to list the actual articles; it avoids the ambiguities presented by interpreting what constitutes related and who is an authority on what. Each of the problematic and the likely-to-be-problematic articles already contain sections for the Bailey/Conway/TMWWBQ controversy. I suggest that Dicklyon and I agree not to edit the controvery sections of the pages listed below and not to edit any part of the articles (listed below) that are essentially entirely about the controversy. (And by not to edit, I mean limit edits to the relevant talk pages.)

No direct editing of controversy in:

• Autogynephilia
• Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
• Archives of Sexual Behavior
• Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (College St. Site)
• Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
• Transsexualism
• Gender identity disorder
• Ray Blanchard, Lynn Conway, J. Michael Bailey, Andrea James, Deirdre McCloskey

No direct editing of:

• Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy
• The Man Who Would Be Queen

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. If we're careful on pages other than those, staying within the spirit of this agreement, we will avoid getting tangled again. Thanks; we're done, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps the above should be copied into the mediation page for reference.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit of assistance, please?

Hey there. I've noticed that you're remarkably good with finding references and sources for scientific topics, and was wondering if you might be able to help out with an article I'm trying to improve. Stanley Coren is a psychology professor and researcher with a substantial body of work, but another editor has expressed concerns about his notability. I've been adding a few references, but I've only got Google to work with. Would you be able to possibly provide a few refs that could be used to ensure that his notability is confirmed? I'd appreciate any time you could provide. Thanks very much! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on my experience at AfD the article will stand as is. The main thing that would help is a full list of books from WorldCat, and following up your Google Scholar links to find citations and reviews. I've explained further at the article talk page & will keep an eye on the article and clean it up a little.

For a fuller explanation of some of the factors involved, see in my talk page archives [29] and [30], since I've been asked about this before. I've also made some comments on the talk page of the article about his book--which seems to be challenged also, despite two full NYT articles about it. I hope the objections are not based on the expressed disagreement with the author's conclusions, for that would be a strong POV violation. DGG (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate the help. I was pretty sure I was on strong ground with my objections, but the COI concerns expressed by the other editor made me want to get a couple of outside viewpoints. I'll keep working on sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough

Right, let's stubbify, then =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneyfacts.co.uk

Did you copy and paste the wrong link to The Observer in your comment about this article? The one you added seems to be about vintage guitars. They may be somehow shuffling their URLs to troll hotlinkers, but that usually results in 404s. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I did paste the wrong link--I left out the final character-- so I fixed it. DGG (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

CarolSpears

The current clean-up list is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/CarolSpears. There is a request by WP:PLANTS to save the references - I'm putting them on the talk pages of the articles I've cleaned. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

found it; I'm marking the ones I clean. I should finish them in a day or two. For the bios, there's enough left that the refs can stay in the main part. I wish we had BotanyKP back. DGG (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability of The Intelligence of Dogs

I'm surprised that you removed my notability message at the top of The Intelligence of Dogs. You state that you confirmed notability, but the article itself should do so through appropriate references. Unfortunately, this article provides no references at all except to the book itself. Like the two NY Times articles that mentioned by Tony Fox, this article consists of little more than a summary of the work. This article does not prove that the book meets the minimum notability guideline for books since at least some of the works cited "should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." The first NY Times review Tony cites (though he doesn't do so in the article itself) is no more than a plot summary, and the second only briefly mentions the book. Therefore, your comment that there are "two full NYT articles about it" is stretching it at best.

The Intelligence of Dogs still doesn't meet any of the other criteria listed in the notability guideline for books, but even if it did, the article should reflect that.

Finally, as far as your remark about that you "hope the objections are not based on the expressed disagreement with the author's conclusions", note that all of my edits and comments have been focused on the low quality of the articles in question. There are plenty of criticisms available of Stanley Coren's hypothesis, methodology, and conclusions in this particular work. That is all immaterial to the quality of the article and value of its subject as encyclopedic knowledge. The bottom line is that while Wikipedia has established low thresholds of notability, we must still provide adequate support for the information presented. Stating that articles are clearly notable is fine, but if that's so clear, then where are the citations to prove it? Let's not assume that everybody knows. Briantresp (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Taking this in turn

1. you can put the tag back it you like, I never dispute over a tag one way or another. After all, it just says that someone questions the notability, and so you do.
2. we don't ourselves actually judge if a book is notable. People who discuss books in publications do, and we just record the fact. Two different writers in the NYT discussed it, as did the Boston Globe. By considerable precedent at AfD, books discussed in a full article in the NYT or a similar newspaper show sufficient public attention to be notable. I see 3 articles. We do not analyze just what it is they say about it for deciding notability, if they think it's important enough to discuss or summarize in that kind of detail. I'm sure other publications did also. I cant imagine that most magazines aimed at dog-fanciers didn't, for the appropriate hobbyist magazines almost invariably discuss books on their subject important enough for a NYT review. In fact, if there are extensive reviews there, it would have been enough by themselves; there is no need for it to be a major general-interest newspaper. Specialized books are discussed in specialized sources, and notability within its field is enough, for books and everything else covered by Wikipedia.
3. .I've read the articles. The Boxer NYT review discusses the subject of the book in detail. The Wade article is a comparison of it with another book on the subject. The Boston Globe article is apparently a discussion of people's reactions to the book. Between they they provide more information that just a list of the contents (obviously, nonfiction doesn't have plot, but I think that's the analogy). -- the reason for the provision is that articles about fiction should include at least some minimal information about other things than the plot.
4. You say "There are plenty of criticisms available of Stanley Coren's hypothesis, methodology, and conclusions in this particular work." Such criticism, if published in 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases), would greatly improve the quality of the article (It also makes the book and the author notable beyond any question.) So go add the references and an appropriate summary of what they say, making sure you get positive criticism also. Surely you want to improve the article if possible. The low quality of a Wikipedia article is not reason to delete it or question the notability of the subject, just to improve the article. The asserted low quality of the research doesnt make it non-notable either--completely incorrect work--even pseudoscience or hoaxes-- if widely commented on in reliable sources is notable. You say yourself you have the citations.. By practice here, the criticism of the work in this particular book goes in the article on the book. Discussion of his work in general goes in the article on the author. Material covered in the article on the book just gets referred to in the article on the author. We have standard advice for the problems here: WP:GOFIXIT. DGG (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor2423

In response to your message dated 06-24-08: "Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to promotional links to various articles, you will be blocked from editing. DGG (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)"

David,

Yes, I have been updating relevant pages with new information from the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants World Refugee Survey 2008. Please note that these updates are entirely factual, and the World Refugee Survey is clearly marked as the source for each. The Survey is an official publication of USCRI, and has received international media coverage. It is the only publication that consistently evaluates individual countries on their treatment of refugees each year, and therefore, it is the best source for recent refugee statistics. All statistics published by the Survey are independently verifiable, and the publication clearly lists USCRI’s research partners. This is an appropriate source for Wikipedia, previous editions have been cited extensively, and there is nothing wrong with updating and enhancing many articles related to refugee issues in succession.

-Amy

Please read our Business FAQ, which, though it deals primarily with business, also applies to non-profit agencies, and explains our conflict of interest policy.If this material has been published by your agency, the accepted way to add it is to suggest it on the article talk pages. Then, editors not affiliated with the source will consider it. I think you may possibly be right that the material is useful,, and you may notice, I have not gone round removing the references, though they need to be added in such a way as not to highlight the name of the organisation. But this is not the way to do it. Others are more stringent than I about our WP:COI policy, and are quite likely to remove the references and the links, and for good measure blacklist your site, if you continue in this manner.

Surely you see that ain order to maintain the objectivity of the encyclopedia, we must guard against people affiliated with any organisation adding what they think important. We get 2000 new articles a day, and many times that number of new links and references. People look at them all, and with a considerable degree of skepticism, for about half of them are totally unjustified public relations, advertising, or personal puffery. Many people try to make a living attempting to add links to our articles, and the addition of many at once to publications of a single organisation, is very much of a red flag.

I try to keep good references in, but they need to be added also that they will stay in; I've helped others do it right. This is already being discussed at our WP:COIN Conflict of Interest, and [[WP:ANI] Incidents noticeboards. I think you will find I have warned you accurately of what is likely to happen. Please read and understand our policy before you respond there. DGG (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hilton Dallas Park Cities

Something's just not right about it, though. Can you help? I have a doc's app't to go to now. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, there is a problem. I'm not sure about the best way to handle major chain hotels like as this, for they are important in their community if only from size. They really are a problem because =unless they are architectural monuments, almost anything that is said will seem a little like public relations. I've been puzzled before, and I remain puzzled. Probably worth a discussion. I'd say merge, except the interest is really the city, not the chain. DGG (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Protestant views of Mary

Could you follow up in the two sections where you already commented over at Talk:Protestant_views_of_Mary? Many thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease, again

Thanks for your note. I've made a fairly extensive series of edits aimed at restoring balance and correcting some of the more obvious issues, though admittedly there is still a long way to go. I'd be interested in your feedback. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dayanand N. Naik

Hi David, hope all is well with you these days. When/if you have a moment and are interested, would you mind lending a hand with Dayanand N. Naik? He is quite likely notable and I've found record of his publications but when you start talking about things such as Multivariate Data Reduction and Discrimination and Computational protein biomarker prediction it goes way over my head and I haven't been able to find anything accessible to the lay person that might help explain Naik's work. Thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

there's a problem here--his notability is not as a researcher--from Web of Science, the citations to his papers are not high enough. He's an applied statistician, which is why such papers as there are are scattered over a number of fields. So it would be dependent upon the possible wide use of his textbooks. The reviews for them certainly help, but evidence of adoption is needed also, which takes a tedious look through Google. I'll do it in the next day or two. Perhaps it will stand at AfD, though there tends to be objections raised when this is the primary criterion satisfied. . DGG (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as always. I wasn't entirely sure he'd survive AfD but I thought there was enough to avoid a speedy as a published researcher and thought the dbs you have access to would claridy other issues such as citations. No rush on doing anything and thanks for what you have done, I figured I'd just get it on your radar. Have a good evening! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Naik will be ok; this is a stub!!! There are many stubs out there! Thanks.

---

I was looking at the Google scholar report attached above. I do not know what is DB report. (I'm not an administrator). What I want to say here is that we cannot all the time conclude just based on these. They are confusing sometimes and difficult to analyze.

Dr. Naik has taught over several thousands of students (including undergraduates, and graduates) at Old Dominion University. He is definitely an Educator. We cannot judge just on the fact that who are using his books in classrooms. I believe Naik's books have gotten some merits. Selection of books in academia is complicated and biased. It should not judged on the number of publications; it should be judged on the quality. One might have written fewer than 10 papers. Currently Naik's article (I started with) is a stub; over the time, this stub might be improved. Thanks. I would like to see DB reports for Dr. Naik. 22:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

JRN08 (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions on Nutritional gatekeeper

Hello David, just wanted to share this DYK with you. I believe without both you and Roger's suggestions this article would have been just one more Deleted subject of an Afd. Thanks again for your input. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On 24 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nutritional gatekeeper, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

This is a stub; hopefully Naik will be ok.

68.163.60.170 (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC) JRN08 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

D. K. Ray-Choudhary

I know as little. Thanks.

JRN08 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

BMHS / FLAB

I figured the link on the disambiguation page was gratuitous, whether the article survives or not. Cretog8 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

EB1911

No offense taken. But, like I said, the horse is out of the stable. If you want to get it back, I think you underestimate the effort and the difficulty of finding volunteers to undertake it. More added to the ongoing discussion. David Brooks (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your post to WT:USRD (no this is not a vandalism thing)

Well, I'm not sure its really the same. A normal road meetup would be mainly made up of a large people eating a big lunch and then getting to cars getting pictures of things with their camera - but if you can help sponsor it, it would be a big help. Also, I would probably host it if it were to happen. Thanks though.Mitch32 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Even in NYC, some people still drive. The NYC group has already held a photo session, though it was mainly by subway, and so have others.--see their page. And there are a number of people coming to our meetings from NJ. If you do hold it there be sure to announce it. DGG (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that would be cool - the group attracted to this mainly is that ones who take pictures of roads and signs. I'm sure we could squeeze in some sight-seeing pics as well. I'll look into the possibility.Mitch32 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Title/3RR

I'm not attempting to "fix" the dispute with a 3RR ruling. I'm attempting to resolve the naming problem with the WQA with 3RR. Presumably I have some right to bring a dispute to dispute resolution without having it be renamed by the subject of the WQA. He has said on my talk page that the intent of renaming the WQA was to reflect his position that the WQA represented a "dispute" between us that he is attempting to solve by making entreaties to me on my talk page. I guess it wasn't clear enough on the WQA itself that wasn't the problem. Protonk (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's my point--you dont settle a WQA issue by trying to take it somewhere else instead or as well. Disputes are best contained in a single place. As for the renaming, I agree with your position on it. DGG (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then I don't understand the process. If I make a WQA about a certain set of acts, then the title is changed so that it no longer appears to represent the same set of facts, where do I go for resolution? I'm not attempting to use the 3RR forum to have the WQA resolved. If in using it at all I am wrong, let me know and I'll remove it. But if I remove it, where do I go to have a third party step in and suggest a solution about the title itself? Again, I'm not asking for a WQA solution in 3RR. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The process is that we engage each other exhaustively on talk pages and then when all else fails move to WQA and beyond. Not before really interacting on the talk pages. A WQA report at this point is skipping steps in the process, which is why it should be withdrawn and instead focused on talk pages or we should just move on. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and when someone suggests as I did that we disengage and get back to the article content, starting a WQ report rather than trying to resolve things on talk pages is just not how we resolve disputes here. There are levels of dispute resolutions and as you can see from my interactions with Seraphim Whipp, when someone engages me politely, I will listen. Let it rest already as going on and on is not going to make things better. Sicnerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

the point is to discuss the underlying issues that brought you there in the first place. If you want dispute resolution, that what other people will want to help you resolve. But at his point, I agree with the comment below that the think to do is to disengage altogether. If you want to email me, feel free. But let us all please not follow this up further, as the first step in disengagement. DGG (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)